Is this Legal/Ethical?

[Jackhorse]

Snip

Clearly we're not clinging to them in any fashion, blindly or otherwise. In fact, it seems like you're the one who's clinging to them, spouting about ageism and idiocy. Every nation on Earth already has laws restricting who can drive. Do you accept those? Do you think there should be no law, and near-blind and the mentally infirm should be allowed to drive? I am willing to bet that you don't, so you accept some limitations. But perhaps curfew is different.

Continuing the examination, there are also laws that restrict how those allowed to drive can drive. Do you reject speed limits, headlights at night, and a ban on drunken driving? I'm willing to bet that you agree with at least one of those for reasons of safety. If you do, then it is logically consequent that a sector of the population which already has restricted rights (no voting, no porn, no alcohol, no smoking), which are largely put in place for their own good (whether or not they actually are for their own good is another question entirely), and for the protection of society, may indeed have their rights restricted when it comes to an activity which definitely can pose a tremendous threat to others, and when teenagers are demonstrably more likely to end up in traffic collisions, and when their already-questionable driving abilities are further compromised by fatigue. The most common cause of death for teenagers (in the United States, I must mention) is traffic collisions, and that's with most of them not being out past midnight.

Moving along to the OP, in this case the ticketing is almost certainly legal. I can honestly say that it appears unethical, however--a police officer trailing an individual that he suspects could be under-aged but is not doing anything that could cause harm to the public, a minute or so after curfew, is a waste of resources. It's adhering to the letter of the law, but contravening its spirit (the spirit of the law, rather than the text, is where any ethical content is to be found). However, maybe there was nothing else the police officer could do at the moment. And perhaps this individual had a history of breaking curfew and a few warnings. But if he didn't, then the officer banning him from driving for two years is definitely petty and mean-spirited.

Sadly, it doesn't seem likely to be illegal. More than that, the law itself is not unethical, merely one action taken under it in and admittedly-gray area (although it should be noted that a good law does not need to be ethical, but it must not be unethical).

The law should apply to all equally. I'm not entirely clear on this curfew but it sounds like if your driving under 18 you must be back by 12:00 at night regardless of circumstances? Surely if the issue is inexperience behind a wheel the curfew should be changed to anyone in their first two years of driving. And all those mentally infirm and near blind would not be allowed to drive in the first place, the issue is not inexperience or age it's that they are not able to drive a car in the first place and so shouldn't be in a car. Saying a person is a threat to society if they drive later in the same day is absurd, this person is of the same driving skill as they were earlier in the day bar a little slower reactions, if they are allowed to drive at 8 in the evening they should be allowed to drive at 4 in the morning if you believe their driving skills to be so comprimised they shouldn't be allowed to drive in the first place.
If the issue is fatigue shouldn't speed limits change for all as the day progressed? Or as an alternative maybe a reactions test to show that the person is unable to drive rather than basing it purely on their age. Drink driving applies to all as a limit to their driving ability, mental illness is an issue that would apply to all as a threat to their driving ability yet somehow fatigue only affects under 18 year olds? Of course over 18 we are free to make decisions concerning our safety such as whether to smoke or drink but earlier in the day we arn't allowed just one cigarette or just one beer other things are blanket yes/no. If they're going to allow teens to drive they should allow them to drive in all situations a normal healthy adult is able to drive in.

 

[AngloDoom]

Cognitive breakdown time!

#1 - Why was the kid being followed home? Most of the time it's damn hard to make out the driver of a car around midnight, so I'd suggest that this person was already driving in a way that caught the officer's attention.

#2 - The office has every right to hand out this punishment, but I don't believe it is up to him to decide to the 'sentence', as such. Correct me if I'm wrong (which I may very well be) but doesn't the officer practically 'tag' the car so others may decide?

#3 - Two years is very much a long time. If the above is true - that the police officer does not decide on the length of time the license is suspended - then we can assume that the person who was deciding would have been impartial and would have given the suspension in proportion to what they believed was reasonable. If the above is not true, then it may very well be the police-office being a right anal creature.

I, personally, think that your neighbour may be omitting some detail here that would make the whole event a lot more understandable. If not, then it probably is just a case of someone, somewhere, is having a shite day in the office and slammed down a big ol' punishment for the lawls.

My thoughts.

 

[MarcFirewing]

He clearly wasn't screwing up. If the cops had been actively doing something useful it'd probably stop people a lot better than the curfew. Maybe I'm just being foolish in thinking the law exists to protect and serve its people.

You never know what he could've been doing. He just said the guy was coming home. For all we know the kid could've been coming back from tagging a place up.

Still. Some places enforce it more than others but yeah.

 

[DanDeFool]

SNIP

The driver did the wrong thing.

The law dictates a certain punishment.

The police officer, whose job it is to enforce the law, did just that.

There is nothing wrong here.

Simple.

Maybe not by a legal standpoint, but by an ethical one it is. Hell I walk my dogs a lot past curfew. They need to pee, so I do it. I think if a cop fined me for it because I am letting my dog do its business in my own yard, would be pretty stupid, and ethically questionable. How can this not raise questions about the ethical standing of the world when cops spend more time tailing a kid because he was driving home and took three to many minutes to get there instead of patrolling the highways for drunk, or reckless drivers? You know, people who might actually hurt, or kill someone?

This reminds me, as virtually all stories about jerk-ass cops do, about a quote from YouTube personality Phillip DeFranco.

"The police are not there to protect you. The police are there to enforce the law. You can go fuck yourself."

So yeah. No sense in griping about a cop doing their job (if being a bit anal-retentive and bureaucratic about it). If you don't like the law, lobby to get it changed.

 

[Lonan]

I've used words to voice my anger at age discrimination far too much, and I don't like repeating myself. So I will describe my feeling about this with the power of song:

 

[Tanner The Monotone]

I said this many times before, THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN!

 

[luckshotpro]

I talked to a police officer that i know personally and asked him about it. He said that there isn't technically anything wrong with it, but it was a pretty "chicken shit" thing of him to do, mentioning that he was really more-so enforcing the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law

 

[Hauntghost20]

GUY:umm my 26 year old was in labour
COP: it says here your 16
GUY: looking scared...SO

 

[Zaik]

Legal yes, ethical no.

 

[Numb1lp]

Cop was in the right.

Neighbor was in the wrong.

Really? The cop was in the right for tailing this kid home and busting him for being 3 min. after curfue? That's ridiculous.

 

[yamitami]

Here is the thing: if the law is in the books then the cops have to follow it. It would be unethical for a cop to not follow the law even if they consider the law unfair. The people you need to be talking to/about is the lawmakers, not the people who enforce it.

This is an example of the correct definition of the ethical. (It is not completely relative as some of you think, you're confusing it with morality - different things.)

The police officer signs on to the force with an understanding that this means he is responsible for upholding the law, as written. If a law allows for officer discretion, as may have been there case in this scenario, it doesn't necessarily matter (ethically) what choice the officer made so long as it was in line with the law, and he followed through/took responsibility for that choice. If it is the case that the officer broke the law somehow, then it would be unethical. Even the choice to follow that person when he could have done other things is simply a choice in which he is allowed personal discretion - the system affords him that freedom to choose, so he is not in conflict with it.

Was it immoral? Depends on who you ask. There really isn't a single set morality these days to judge by, and the law is the closest tool we have to reflect democratic morality (even though it may not serve that purpose in all cases). So, you can think what the cop did was immoral in a broader perspective, but that doesn't mean it was unethical necessarily.

I don't see how someone getting in trouble for being over curfew is underhanded. It's the 'but s/he turns 18 in a month so it's not statutory' argument. They have to draw the line somewhere and if you're over that line then you're over that line and it doesn't matter if it's a little or a lot. There's nothing underhanded about that.

Plus I really can't see a viewpoint that would make the cop's actions immoral, aside from some teenage rage against the machine view. It's not like a curfew causes undue stress to a teenager regardless of how unfaaaaaaaair and terrible they think it is, and it's not like the kid wouldn't have had warning that they had to be home by midnight. I never had any problems getting home on time when I was still under curfew, and at the time the local law set it at 10PM.

Furthermore, I doubt we're getting the whole story. I highly doubt the kid got that strict a punishment for the first offense, or if they didn't have any previous warnings some snarking at the cop might have been involved. Cops tend to cut someone more slack if they're respectful.

 

[CrystalShadow]

I'm sorry, but this kind of thing sickens me.

This turns the law from sonething meaningful into an excuse to abuse people for trivialities, and in my opinion undermines confidence and respect for the institutions of law.

Laws as a concept exists to serve a purpose, not as an entity unto itself that should be tolerated just because.

It genuinely drives me nuts that people support these kind of things.

If it makes you feel better, it sickens me that people do not stand and support their laws steadfastly. I suppose we shouldn't prosecute someone if they just steal a stick of gum? What if they just kick their dog once? It's not animal abuse if they only kick him once, right? Of course, these are examples of things that show someone lacks respect for the law, and moral fiber on the whole. Once you start making exceptions for "trivialities", there is a slippery slope. This isn't the fictitious, absurd slippery slope politicians use to say that letting gays marry will result in nuclear war or some other relative impossibility, but a real, empirical one that we have seen.

For instance, speeding by five or six miles per hour is the norm. This means that the speed limit in all areas needs to be five miles below what it is expected to be. The government acknowledges that people are breaking the law, so they lower speed limits across the board to cut it out. I guess we could move the curfew back to 11:30, though.

Anyway, as proof that this affects our mentality, I'd like to point to anyone who has posted in support of the criminal here. Their perception of the law has been warped to the point where they think that breaking the law "only by a little" isn't breaking the law any more. It's sad to think their social values have decayed so much.

You don't get the consequences of the other side of this argument though do you?

Have you ever given any thought about what it means to live in a police state?

Or just what consequence blind obedience to authority can have if the authority in question isn't actually to be trusted?

You might well have issues with people thinking it's OK to break the law if it's a little thing, but I have issues with blindly accepting laws without question.

Meanwhile, there are also plenty of examples of 'crimes' that still exist, yet are no longer enforced.
Technically, you're breaking the law, yet everybody acknowledges these things are meaningless, and even the police don't care if you do it right in front of them.#
And yet, nobody seems to care that these laws haven't been repealed, or in many cases, even aware that they still exist.

Yet they could be enforced by anyone that chose to do so...

New South Wales in Australia still has jay-walking laws; Nobody has been arrested for it since the 1970's, and it's not because it no longer happens.
Equally, there's some horrific laws that make it a criminal offense to be poor.
Should those be enforced too?

Point is, this works both ways.

Allowing people to get away with little things might well make them keep pushing it further, or as you say, mess with things associated with it (like speed limits.)

But equally, some laws were created on a whim and serve little practical purpose.
Should we all just accept that?

I'll say this again, because it's worth repeating:
Blind obedience to authority is a dangerous thing. And, while you'll probably find it a rather trite thing to bring into a discussion like this, I'll quote star trek here:

"There can be no Justice, while the law is absolute!" - Jean Luc Picard, "Justice".

 

[MarcFirewing]

Wow.

You're seriously suggesting that everyone must be assumed to be criminals. For all I know you might be some kind of internet scammer. So what? I have no reason to suspect you are besides random prejudices and discriminations I make and a lack of any evidence.

What's more he clearly was going home, as he was given the penalty in his driveway.

Wow. You apparently can't read that I said he could've. I never said he WAS a criminal, or that EVERYONE must be assumed to be criminals. And you have no reason to NOT suspect me for being an internet scammer or some kind of white supremacist.

Thank you. And kindly not harass me over throwing out my opinion.

 

[Scout Tactical]

snip

Police states are formed when punishment is inflated.

If you obey the law when we don't crack down on absurd levels, it never gets to police state levels. We are not yet at a police state level, so your entire argument's validity is questionable until we are at those levels. To avoid getting at those levels, my argument suggests we obey the laws so that they don't get out of hand.

See how my argument precludes yours, since it solves the scenario that yours exists in? That is, unless, you'd like to assert that the US is currently an authoritarian police state in which we should fear the thought police.

 

[CrystalShadow]

snip

Police states are formed when punishment is inflated.

If you obey the law when we don't crack down on absurd levels, it never gets to police state levels. We are not yet at a police state level, so your entire argument's validity is questionable until we are at those levels. To avoid getting at those levels, my argument suggests we obey the laws so that they don't get out of hand.

See how my argument precludes yours, since it solves the scenario that yours exists in? That is, unless, you'd like to assert that the US is currently an authoritarian police state in which we should fear the thought police.

Sounds a lot like it, when you hear stuff like this. - I mean, look at the OP.

Does it really sound reasonable to lose your licence for 2 years for being 3 minutes past curfew?
(never mind that the whole idea of a curfew is pretty messed up to begin with).
Being followed around in case you break a fairly minor law, and then being told, when you're essentially in your own driveway that you're 3 minutes past curfew is quite stupid, and doesn't deserve that kind of punishment.

And take your earlier point about speeding. Do you know that the legal requirements for car manufacturers generally only require a speedometer to have a tolerance of 10%?
And yet you can booked for speeding at speeds where the equipment you have available to you might not even be able to pick up the difference accurately.

If you're going 50mph, but your speedometer is only accurate to within 10%, you could be going up to 55, or as little as 45...
But who cares that laws contradict eachother right? As long as they're obeyed.

But as for the US, I honestly don't know if it qualifies as a police state. (a bit of a broad concept, since to my knowledge, the individual states handle law enforcement individually, which means some areas could be a lot worse than others.)

And, since I've never been to the US, I can't comment on it regardless with any real accuracy, except to say that what I have heard often sounds quite messed up and heavy-handed.

My experience with actual police officers has generally been that they aren't as anal as what this thread implies.

This kind of thing would probably have gotten a warning anywhere I've lived.

For that matter, I still don't understand how following someone around is in any way reasonable behaviour when your only reason for doing so is that you think they might do something so trivial.

I just don't see how this can be justified as being reasonable behaviour on the part of a police officer who should have more important things to worry about.

 

[clint5254]

So my neighbor, who is 16, a new driver was driving home on a Friday night. He arrived in his driveway at 12:03 to find that a cop had tailed him all the way back to his house. As the curfew was midnight he was technically violating it, so the cops suspended his license until he turned 18. thats just under 2 years for 3 minutes past curfew. So i was wondering, are cops allowed to do this. And if they are, do you agree with it. Explain.

*Also, i would like to note that this isnt a hypothetical, it happened next door to me, i mean the house DIRECTLY next to mine.

It's legal, there's nothing really unethical about it either. Honestly, your neighbor should have left sooner and planned to be back with time to spare. Just because you have a reasonable expectation of getting away with your crimes doesn't excuse them when you make a slight error.

If the cop tailed him home and asked to see his vehicle inspection, found it expired, and ticketed him, I'd think the same thing.

well driving home and getting there 3 minutes late and suspending his licence is a bit bloody harsh. over here in australia we have no curfew, just we get our learner plates and then our provisional plates. learners have to have a an adult or someone with a full licence to be in the car when they drive and then they can only do a certain speed and p platers can drive by them selves but the can only do 100 kilometers an hour or 60 miles an hour for whoever needs a conversion. and i think it is unfair to do that id rather the cop let someone off for being only 3 minutes late and not tail him home and catch a drink driver who could kill multiple people. 3 mins late = non fatality where as drunk driver not caught by a cop cuz he follwed some young driver home = probable death. see my point?

there was a case here in Aus when a cop was to busy tryin to catch out the younger drivers and some old codger went passed him goin faster than he should have and wiped out 3 people.