Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
DEMOCRACY
20 08
Sommaire
In 1996, scientists in Scotland created Dolly, a sheep who was an identical genetic copy of
her mother. Since that time, scientists in other parts of the world have produced genetic
duplicates of such animals as a cow, a mouse, a cat, a dog, a horse, a pig, and even a ferret. This
process, called cloning, has led to increased interest and concern by governments and ordinary
persons. Officials and citizens around the world are discussing the uses of human cells in medical
research and the prospect of reproducing people through cloning.
Kinds of Cloning
Cloning is different from other forms of assisted reproduction, such as artificial
insemination or in vitro fertilization. In assisted reproduction, the sperm of a male donor is
brought together with the egg of a female donor, just like in natural reproduction. Cloning, by
contrast, involves transferring the genetic material from the nucleus of one adult cell of an
organism and placing it into an egg whose genetic material has been removed. After receiving a
careful burst of electricity, the egg begins to divide into an embryo as if sperm had fertilized it.
Regarding human cloning, scientists and policymakers generally make a distinction
between reproductive and therapeutic cloning. While the same techniques are used in the initial stages
of both processes (German National Ethics Council, 2004), they quickly differ in important ways
(Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, 2002).
Reproductive cloning, the process used to create Dolly the sheep, involves implanting an
embryo into a females uterus. If the implantation is successful, the embryo grows and is born
just like any other baby. The result, like Dr. Evils Mini-Me in the Austin Powers movies or the
master composers in the Russian opera Rosenthals Children, is a genetic copy of the donor.
Therapeutic cloning does not implant an embryo into a uterus. Instead, therapeutic cloning
focuses on stem cells and how they develop. These cells are very versatile: all the specialized cells
of the body - bone, blood, nerves, muscles, skin - develop from stem cells. Despite this
versatility, stem cells do not themselves have the capacity to form a fetus or a newborn animal
(COSEPUP, 2002). Some researchers use therapeutic cloning to understand genetic defects. They
also use therapeutic cloning to learn how to renew cells or tissues in people who suffer from
degenerative diseases or crippling injuries. Other scientists pursue therapeutic cloning because
they believe that stem cell research, like other frontiers in science, will lead to unexpected
discoveries.
Cell Sources for Cloning
Currently, surplus embryos donated by parents undergoing in vitro fertilization are used
as a source for stem cells. Fertility clinics routinely discard these unused embryos. When
researchers receive embryos from a fertility lab, the embryos are only a few days old but are alive
4
and growing. The embryos are still in the blastocyst stage. That means they are a hollow ball of
64 to 200 cells in two layers. The researchers remove the stem cells - the inner layer of cells - to
grow them in the lab. The outer layer of cells - which would have grown into the placenta, the
means for nutrients to pass to a growing fetus - is discarded.
The Debate over Cloning
No country today supports the reproductive cloning of humans. Since the creation of
Dolly, individual countries and the international community have worked to ban the cloning of
humans to produce children. A 1998 United Nations General Assembly declaration stated that
Practices which are contrary to human dignity, such as reproductive cloning of human beings,
shall not be permitted (Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights).
Yet the declaration also said Freedom of research, which is necessary for the progress of
knowledge, is part of freedom of thought. The applications of research, including applications in
biology, genetics and medicine, concerning the human genome, shall seek to offer relief from
suffering and improve the health of individuals and humankind as a whole (Article 12). This
balance of interests - the preservation of human dignity and the relief of human suffering exposes the fundamental fault line dividing those who see promise and value in therapeutic
cloning and those who seek a total ban on all forms of cloning.
Cloning in a Democratic Society: Who Decides?
Another key question in the cloning discussion is who has the authority to decide. Many
countries have created advisory committees of scientists, ethicists, and medical experts to help
them understand cloning. Yet most governments keep the power to decide for themselves. Not
surprisingly, different democracies have made different choices. The German National Ethics
Council, for example, recommended in 2004 that the country maintain its 1990 Embryo
Protection Law. This law bans all forms of cloning. This decision was made even though a
majority of the councils members were in favor of allowing therapeutic research. In 2006, the
Australian parliament overturned a ban on therapeutic cloning, and a five-year ban in Russia is
due for reconsideration in 2007. The United States has restricted federal funding for therapeutic
cloning since 2001, limiting research to a narrow group of government-approved stem cells.
Research funded by private and state sources continues at U.S. research institutes and
universities, however.
Cloning Human Cells: Supporters and Opponents
Supporters of cloning argue that careless use of the term cloning has confused the public at
the cost of good science. Reproductive cloning places an altered human cell in a females uterus.
In contrast, therapeutic cloning takes place in a laboratory and cannot lead to a human being. The
clear differences in technique between therapeutic and reproductive cloning and the international
consensus against reproductive cloning mean there is little danger of a slippery slope leading
from cloning that can cure to cloning that is universally condemned.
3. Cloning is very costly and any advances will happen decades from now and benefit only
the wealthy and influential. The money and effort devoted to cloning should be spent on
current problems - like AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis - that affect millions of mostly
poor people worldwide.
4. Humanity cannot leave decisions about human cloning to experts. Scientists do not ask
whether something should or should not be done; instead, they ask whether something
can be done and what can be learned from doing it. Societies, through national and
international agreements, have the right and the responsibility to draw the line in
scientific research.
5. Human cloning represents the very worst characteristics of capitalism. Both therapeutic
and reproductive cloning turn human embryos into little more than spare parts or new
clothes for those who can afford them. When human beings are viewed as market
commodities, they are denied their fundamental rights as persons.
Every society has laws defining crimes. Every society punishes people who commit those
crimes. But how should the state punish the guilty? Consider these four cases:
1. Milada Horakova was a Czechoslovakian politician who resisted the Nazis during World
War II. The Nazis captured and imprisoned her. After the war, she returned to her
country and served in Parliament. She resigned her seat after the communist coup in
1948. Within 18 months, she was arrested on charges of attempting to overthrow the
government. She was tried publicly in a show trial. Despite a lack of evidence, she was
found guilty of treason. Horakova was hanged on June 27, 1950. Today she is recognized
as a national heroine in the Czech Republic.
2. On January 7, 1965, Mildred Weiss, a mother of two, was returning to her home in San
Gabriel, California, when she was confronted and shot by Robert Lee Massie. Weiss was
only one of Massies victims during a seven-day crime spree. Massie was arrested;
convicted of robbery, attempted murder, and murder; and sentenced to death. Hours
before his scheduled execution, a stay was issued so that Massie could testify against his
accomplice. Massie's sentence was later commuted to life in prison when the U.S.
Supreme Court temporarily halted executions in 1972. He was eventually paroled. Eight
months later, he robbed and murdered businessman Boris Naumoff in San Francisco,
California. More than 36 years after he murdered Mildred Weiss, Massie was executed in
March 2001 by the State of California.
3. In 1995, the State of North Carolina sentenced Alan Gell to death for the crime of first degree murder. Gell maintained his innocence while serving nine years on death row. His
appeal revealed that the prosecution had withheld significant evidence proving Gells
innocence. Upon his exoneration, Gell and his family were jubilant. We finally got the
truth, said Gells stepfather. We have felt sure he was not guiltyIt was a hard fight.
You cant win a fight when the other side makes up the evidence.
4. In 1998, 29-year-old drug addict Roman Postl was convicted of murdering fellow Czech
Jan Stencl. Postl was sentenced to 13 years in prison. He was released early, in 2008,
because of his good behavior. Over three days in September 2008, Postl murdered four
men, including a police officer who tried to stop him. Another police officer shot Postl,
who died of his wounds later that month.
In a democracy, there are limits on how the government can punish persons convicted of
crimes. The government must follow laws and procedures approved by the people. Almost all
democracies, for example, forbid torture or cruel punishments for prisoners. There are dramatic
differences, however, regarding capital punishment - both within and among democracies.
Capital Punishment
Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the lawful execution of a convicted criminal
by the government. Those crimes punishable by death are known as capital crimes. Sixty-two
countries, including India, Pakistan, Cuba, Japan, Iran, Iraq, China, Saudi Arabia, and the United
States, retain the death penalty. In 2007, China executed 470 people, the most performed in a
single country, whereas Iran executed 317 and the United States executed 42.
Many democracies have abolished the death penalty on the principle that executing any
person is dehumanizing, even if that person was convicted of the worst kinds of crime. Ninetyone countries prohibit capital punishment, including Azerbaijan, Serbia, Ukraine, and the United
Kingdom. The European Unions Charter of Fundamental Rights states, No one shall be
condemned to the death penalty, or executed. Protocol 6 of the European Convention on
Human Rights states that the death penalty shall be abolished except in times of war. All
member states except the Russian Federation have ratified Protocol 6, and Russia no longer uses
the death penalty. The International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for
Rwanda did not consider the option of capital punishment, even though the tribunals were
hearing charges of genocide, the systematic mass murder of an entire national, ethnic, or cultural
group.
Despite European governments disapproval of capital punishment, some polls show that
many European people support the death penalty. Polling conducted in 2005 by the independent
firm Angus Reid Global Monitor found, for example, that 57% of Czechs supported the death
penalty, as did 70% in Poland and 65% in Russia. Only 23% of Italians favored the death penalty.
Public support for capital punishment has been strong throughout U.S. history, remaining
above 50% since the 1960s. The Pew Research Center reports that U.S. support for the death
penalty for persons convicted of murder has remained between 62% and 68% since 2001. Most
capital cases are determined by the laws of each state, and currently 14 states do not have a death
penalty. Whether such punishment has a legitimate purpose, therefore, remains a hotly debated
public issue within democratic societies regardless of what the laws in each country say.
The Death Penalty and the Purposes of Punishment
Societies have varied purposes for punishing people found guilty of crimes. Debates
about the death penalty usually cite three distinct but related purposes: retribution, deterrence,
and incapacitation.
Retribution is the idea that criminals face punishments in proportion to the amount of
damage they have caused society. This principle, sometimes called an an eye for an eye, was
common in the ancient cultures of the Near East. It was part of Mesopotamian, Hebrew, and
Greek law thousands of years ago. Proponents of capital punishment argue that, in order to
prevent individuals from resorting to private violence, the government must execute those who
have murdered others. Some proponents of capital punishment also view the death penalty as a
means of closure for victims families - executing the convicted murderer can end their ordeal.
10
equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has. Yet
many notorious examples suggest that poor defendants do not receive equal justice. For example,
attorneys have fallen asleep or otherwise neglected their duties during a trial. Advanced
technologies like DNA testing also cost money and require expertise that is not available equally.
This inconsistency mocks the idea of equality before the law.
Death penalty supporters in the United States see the exoneration of persons on death
row as proof that the system works. They believe that the appeals process is one of many
safeguards to ensure fairness. Others include legal representation for the accused in capital crimes
and the option to have a case decided by an impartial jury of citizens. Moreover, with DNA
testing and other advances in forensic science, death penalty proponents in the United States and
elsewhere say it is highly unlikely that an innocent individual will be sentenced to death.
As democracies decide how to deter future crimes and to punish the most heinous of
criminals, the debate over capital punishment will continue.
12
13
The frequent and public exchange of ideas is central to a thriving democracy. The
Internet, mobile phones, and digital technologies allow people to send words, images, and sounds
to a wide audience in a matter of seconds. However, some electronic messages are harmful.
Schools have long faced the problem of bullies. Todays bullies can now use interactive
and digital technologies to harass and intimidate other students. Although schools have a duty to
protect the safety and well-being of their students, much of this cyberbullying takes place off
campus, outside of school hours. Therefore, schools must decide whether or not to punish
bullies for actions taken beyond school walls.
What Is Cyberbullying?
According to Parry Aftab of the U.S. Wired Safety Group, cyberbullying occurs when a
child, preteen, or teen is tormented, harassed, humiliated, embarrassed or otherwise targeted by
another child, preteen, or teen using the Internet, interactive and digital technologies or mobile
phones. Unlike traditional bullying, cyberbullying does not always involve a powerless victim.
Because students can hide their identities electronically, bullied students can more easily strike
back. Thus, weaker students can and do become cyberbullies.
In a European study on Internet safety that included the Czech Republic, Estonia,
Lithuania, and Romania, students mentioned many forms of cyberbullying. Among them were
mockery, leg pulling, insults, threats, disagreeable comments and slander, sent by e-mail, put
forward on discussion forums, left on blogs, telephoned anonymously or sent by text message.
Students have also created false e-mail accounts or social networking profiles (such as on
Facebook or MySpace). While impersonating other students, these cyberbullies broadcast mean,
offensive, or hateful things. In happy slapping, as it is called in the Czech Republic,
cyberbullies record their assaults on children with camera phones. They then broadcast these
attacks via video messaging or websites. Technically savvy students have also sent destructive
viruses to or installed spyware on their victims computers. As Aftab argues, The cyberbullying
methods used are limited only by the childs imagination and access to technology.
The Extent and Consequences of Cyberbullying
A recent national survey conducted by the Pew Internet and American Life Project found
that one third (32%) of all U.S. teenagers who use the Internet say they have been targets of
annoying and potentially menacing online activities. The unauthorized forwarding or public
posting of private communication was the most common form of cyberbullying.
The problem also appears to be common in several European countries. In the Czech
Republic, for example, a 2005 survey of young people revealed that 1 in 5 had been bullied by
mobile phone or the Internet. While many children perceive these activities as jokes and making
14
fun, cyberbullying has resulted in some students refusing to go to school and/or experiencing
anxiety, depression, and insomnia. Furthermore, a recent UNICEF report showed bullying to be
a significant problem for children in the Russian Federation, Estonia, and Lithuania. As more
students gain access to digital technologies, cyberbullying will likely become more common.
In some cases, cyberbullying has tragic outcomes. In the Czech Republic, two twelve-year
old female students attempted suicide because of class bullying. Luckily, their parents found them
in time to save them. In the United States, the case of Ryan Halligan was more catastrophic. In
2003, a boy spread a rumor that Ryan was gay. He was repeatedly taunted on and offline.
According to Nancy Willard of the Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use, Cyberbullying
based on sexual orientation appears to be quite frequent and has been implicated/suggested in
most of the cases that have resulted in suicide.
The taunting continued into the summer, when Ryan engaged in several online exchanges
with a girl. As his father said, approaching a popular girl from school was a surefire way to
squash the gay rumor before everyone returned to school. When Ryan approached this student
in the fall, she called him a loser and said she had only pretended to like him. She also extracted
personal, embarrassing information from him during their supposedly private instant messaging
exchanges and shared it with her friends. Ryan hung himself on October 7, 2003.
The Legality of School Responses to Cyberbullying
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, Congress shall make no
lawabridging the freedom of speech. However, the Supreme Court has ruled in several cases
that schools can limit student speech. In the 1969 Tinker decision, for example, the Court decided
that schools could prohibit student speech if it materially and substantially interfered with the
requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school. In subsequent cases,
courts have used Tinker to determine if student speech about other students, teachers, or the
school caused substantial disruption to the school community. Most of these cases involve
student offenses against teachers and administrators rather than other students. Recent lower
court decisions have addressed harassment via Internet technologies, such as a student website
that made insulting comments about and threatened a teacher (J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District).
In the majority of decisions, the courts ruled against school districts that punished students for
off-campus Internet postings. In Killion v. Franklin Regional School District, for example, the court
ruled that a school could not discipline a student for inappropriate off-campus e-mail unless that
student brought the speech to school.
Given the courts reluctance to limit off-campus student speech, U.S. school officials,
parents, and legislators have addressed cyberbullying in other ways. For example, in Vermont,
where Ryan Halligan lived, a new state law requires that public schools establish bullying
prevention procedures. Some schools have added a provision to their acceptable use policies that
students must sign. These policies authorize schools to discipline the student for actions taken
off-campus if they are intended to have an effect on a student or they adversely affect the safety
and well-being of a student while in school (Willard, 2003). Additionally, some parents and
students have successfully argued that cyberbullies violated civil or criminal laws by, for example,
intentionally inflicting emotional distress or committing a hate crime.
15
The 48-nation Council of Europes Convention on Human Rights also protects freedom
of expression and states that public authority should not interfere with it. Additionally, the
United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that the right to
freedom of expression shall include freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas
of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or
through any other media of his choice. However, this document also declares that the exercise
of free expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities and thus can be restricted
for the rights and reputations of others and the protection ofpublic order.
In 2004, schools from Lithuania, Russia, Serbia, and Ukraine contributed to the European
Charter for a Democratic School without Violence. This document announces, All members of the
school community have the right to a safe and peaceful school. Everyone has the responsibility
to contribute to creating a positive and inspiring environment for learning and personal
development. In response, organizations like Childline Lithuania and UNICEF Serbia have
promoted comprehensive anti-bullying school policies. Additionally, the Serbian Ministry of
Education has issued rules for the prevention of bullying in schools. In the Czech town of Usti
nad Labem, police officers have begun patrolling schools where cyberbullying is a major issue. To
enable Usti students to report incidents anonymously, police have placed special letter-boxes in
schools.
Prohibiting Off-Campus Cyberbullying: Supporters and Opponents
Some people believe that schools can most effectively prevent cyberbullying by punishing
harmful off-campus student actions. If students know cyberbullying has consequences, they will
be less likely to participate in electronic activities aimed at tormenting other students.
Others argue that protecting the personal safety of bullied youth requires well-defined
anti bullying school policies and laws. Suggestions or recommendations for confronting
cyberbullying often do not result in concrete actions. However, when school districts are required
by law to stop cyberbullying, they are more likely to work with schools, parents, and students to
implement anti-bullying programs that work.
Opponents do not endorse cyberbullying. They just do not believe punishment by school
authorities can effectively stop it. Some people argue that anti-bullying policies are often not
enforced. This is particularly true if no funding is available to monitor schools progress or to
develop successful programs. A more useful way to address cyberbullying is a grassroots
approach. Individual schools can create comprehensive strategies for combating bullying and
violence based on the administrators, staff members, and students understanding of the
problem.
Other opponents argue that cyberbullying is an ambiguous term. Many youth view
dispute and teasing as a normal part of growing up. So-called cyberbullying just uses modern
resources to do so. When teasing becomes harmful, youth know it but often do not seek the help
of teachers or other adults. We should therefore focus our energy on empowering youth to
challenge destructive forms of cyberbullying. This strategy will work better than top-down
16
policies. Moreover, when students violate civil or criminal laws, the courts should discipline them,
not schools.
People who support school intervention in off-campus cyberbullying argue that it causes
significant school disruptions. Because digital technologies often leave evidence behind, school
officials should take the time to investigate cyberbullying. Most of the time they will find plenty
of reasons to justify formal discipline.
People who do not support school intervention in cyberbullying argue that we should
educate rather than punish students. Teens are still developing their values. They will work to
limit cyberbullying if they understand it is at odds with their personal code of ethics.
Will schools that punish off-campus cyberbullying improve school safety and protect the
dignity of individual students? Or will they exceed their authority and violate students right t o
freedom of expression? Citizens must consider which policies best balance their rights to safety,
respect, and free speech.
17
18
Imagine you are in a relationship with an abusive individual. In a fit of rage, your partner
hits you. These blows injure your face. You want to go to the hospital for treatment but know
that doctors are required by law to report this violent incident to the police. Y ou wonder: Will
this report prevent more abuse by holding your partner accountable for the violence? Or will a
police report lead to more violence because your partner will retaliate against you?
In order to protect the personal safety of their citizens, democracies must address such
dilemmas when trying to stop domestic violence. Because domestic violence transcends all
boundaries and occurs in all cultures (Baban, 2003), governments around the world are
developing policies to confront it. Requiring health care providers to report domestic violence to
state authorities is one proposed policy. Making an informed decision in favor of or opposing
such mandatory reporting requires an understanding of the forces involved in domestic violence.
The Dynamics of Domestic Violence
It is estimated that one in every five women faces some form of violence during her
lifetime, in some cases leading to serious injury or death. - World Health Organization (WHO),
Addressing Violence against Women.
Domestic violence is the physical, psychological, or sexual abuse of an intimate adult
partner. Domestic violence differs from other forms of violence because it disproportionately
affects women. In Europe, 25% of all violent crimes reported involve a man assaulting his wife
or partner (European Commission, 2000). Additionally, findings from a large-scale U.S. survey
of women and men reveal that three times more women experience intimate partner violence
than men (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).
This gender-based violence is a complex and multidimensional problem (Baban, 2003).
People who have not experienced domestic violence may blame women for remaining in an
abusive relationship. However, intimate relationships are rarely abusive at the beginning. Women
often develop love for their partners before abuse sets in. What is more, abusive relationships are
not constantly violent. Abusers effectively weave together intimacy and abuse to control their
partners (Missouri Coalition against Domestic and Sexual Violence, 2006).
Importantly, the large number of women experiencing domestic violence reflects deeprooted gender inequality (WHO, 2005). The United Nations Development Fund for Women
(UNIFEM) identifies power inequalities between women and men as the primary source of
violence against women. When cultural norms in families, schools, and workplaces perpetuate the
belief that women are inferior to men, women are more vulnerable to violence (UNIFEM, 2001).
Therefore, organizations working to eliminate domestic violence have increasingly focused on
changing forms of masculinity that promote violence. A program with male youth from Bosnia,
19
Croatia, Montenegro, and Serbia, for example, sought to help these young men develop a male
identity that supports respectful and equitable interactions with women (Eckman et al., 2007).
Poverty, war, and womens lack of formal education are also linked to domestic violence
(WHO, 2005). Men who are unemployed or have little job security may act violently out of
frustration and feelings of hopelessness. In addition to men using rape and sexual violence
against women as tools of war, men in war-torn nations may lose their status as leaders and
protectors of the household. The stress, feelings of inadequacy and low self-esteem among
men in such situations increase their likelihood to perpetrate violence (Eckman et al., 2007).
Women with less education are also more likely to experience domestic violence than
those with higher levels of education. Although some men may react violently to womens
empowerment through education, when enough women achieve a higher level of education,
they develop greater self-confidence, wider social networks, and greater ability to use
information and resources (WHO, 2005). This empowerment can shift traditional gender roles
and enable women to achieve economic independence, both of which lead to greater gender
equality and, as a result, less gender-based violence.
The Contested Role of Mandatory Reporting
The complex nature of domestic violence leads many to argue that solutions to it must
also be complex. Some advocates therefore argue that a coordinated community response is the
only way to ensure survivor safety and hold abusers accountable. Such a response includes law
enforcement agencies, advocates, health care providers, child protection services, local
businesses, the media, employers and clergy (Stop Violence Against Women, 2006).
Others argue that requiring health care providers to report domestic violence to state
authorities is a more limited but effective remedy to domestic violence. Viewing domestic
violence as a criminal and health care issue, supporters of mandatory reporting want police and
health care providers to work together to resolve it. They argue that involving health care
providers in the reporting process helps to ensure that physicians understand the dynamics of
domestic violence. Physicians who receive training on domestic violence will have a greater
awareness of the issue and thus be able to identify and treat injuries associated with it (Colorado
Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 2006).
Those who view survivor safety as the first priority in responding to domestic violence
frequently oppose mandatory reporting. According to the Commission of Human Rights, police
cultures in many countries show discriminatory attitudes toward women in general and female
survivors of domestic violence in particular (Coomaraswamy, 1997). Women therefore often
mistrust police officers and do not want to report abuse to them. If survivors fear that reporting
will place them and their children in greater danger, they may not seek medical care or may not
tell their providers about the abuse (Hyman, 1997). When survivors avoid medical treatment
because they do not trust the police and/or fear retaliation by their abusers for involving state
authorities, they often do not receive the care and resources - such as counseling, shelter, and
legal services - they need to prevent further abuse.
20
Indeed, some health care providers argue that mandatory reporting weakens their ability
to offer effective interventions for domestic violence. If survivors hide their abusive situation
from health care providers in order to avoid mandatory reporting, health care providers cannot
refer them to appropriate resources and support services. Some health care providers also view
mandatory reporting as violating provider-patient confidentiality. If patients do not want violent
incidents reported, many health care providers want to honor that decision. If a mandatory
reporting policy is in effect, however, health care providers violate the law when they refuse to
report domestic violence incidents (United Nations, 2006; Association of Womens Health,
Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses, 2007).
Proponents of mandatory reporting counter that because many survivors do not call the
police, governments have a difficult time assessing the frequency and extent of domestic
violence. Without accurate statistics about the problem, policy makers have a difficult time
obtaining the resources and support necessary to help survivors and create effective violence
prevention programs. Mandatory reporting by health care providers can help governments better
document the domestic violence incidents affecting their citizens (Stop Violence Against Women,
2006). With a more precise identification of the problem, governments can treat domestic
violence as a public policy issue that deserves immediate attention and remedies.
Supporters also insist that mandatory reporting allows state authorities to find abusers. If
survivors do not go to law enforcement or social service agencies to report abuse, governments
are unable to prosecute those committing domestic violence. When health care providers report
violent incidents, on the other hand, the criminal justice system can grant the survivor an order of
protection. Additionally, the evidence of abuse that health care providers record in survivors
medical files can be used to prosecute and convict identified abusers.
Those opposing mandatory reporting charge that it denies survivors the right to make
their own critical life decisions. By not allowing survivors to decide if they want to report abuse,
mandatory reporting perpetuates harmful stereotypes of battered women as passive and
helpless (Hyman, 1997).
Supporters of mandatory reporting contend that it improves survivor safety by treating
domestic violence as criminal acts of assault and abuse rather than a family matter (Sachs,
2000). To eliminate domestic violence, governments need to inform the general public that it is
a serious crime that will not be ignored (Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 2006).
Human rights activist Charlotte Bunch argues, There is nothing immutable about the
violent oppression of women and girlsBut because it has been so deeply ingrained, for so long,
in virtually every culture remaining on earth, the effort to dismantle the societal structures that
tolerate it, or patently refuse to see it, will require creativity, patience and actions on many
fronts.
21
22
to avoid mandatory reporting, health care providers cannot refer them to appropriate
resources and support services.
4. Mandatory reporting violates provider-patient confidentiality. If patients do not want
violent incidents reported, many health care providers want to honor that decision.
Mandatory reporting turns this ethical refusal to report domestic violence into a violation
of the law.
5. Survivors are autonomous adults who have the right to make their own critical life
decisions. By not allowing survivors to decide if they want to report abuse, mandatory
reporting perpetuates harmful stereotypes of battered women as passive and helpless
(Hyman, 1997).
23
In todays world, millions of people move each year from one country to another. They
leave their countries for many reasons. Some are seeking work. Others are refugees from war or
civil unrest. Some are trying to escape persecution, while others are attracted to freedoms or
comforts in another land. Some people want a new start in life or a chance to reunite with their
families.
Every nation has the right to control who crosses its borders. Very often the process of
applying for legal entry into another country is long, complicated, and expensive, with no
guarantee of success. While many immigrants have the time, the resources, and the connections
to migrate legally, millions more face great barriers.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR), more than
10 million people are stateless (officially without a country), and another 25 million people in
50 countries are internally displaced persons (IDPs) - people who have been forced to flee
their homes to escape armed conflict, chaos, violence, human rights abuses, or natural or manmade disasters. Often desperate to escape such conditions, many people enter other countries
illegally.
Democratic societies see themselves as sharing equality through citizenship. Lacking
citizenship, undocumented non-citizens raise fundamental questions for democracies about the
difference between the rights of citizens and the rights of all persons in a country particularly
regarding government services. One flashpoint for this debate is public education.
Democratic Nations and Non-Citizens
Countries have many different kinds of non-citizens. Some persons have government
approval as immigrants or refugees; they may stay as legal permanent residents, and some even
seek citizenship in their new country. Other non-citizens first enter a country legally but then
overstay their visas or engage in non-permitted activities, such as work. In nations such as
Kuwait, persons who have lived their entire lives in the country may still not be official citizens.
Then there are persons who are in a country without any government authorization.
The presence of non-citizens is a significant issue for many democratic nations.
According to the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), for example,
approximately 9% of the population of Federal Republic of Germany are non-citizens. Almost
half (49%) have lived there 11 years or more; some were even born there (1997, SOPEMI). In
France, 5.6% of the total population are non-citizens (1999). Based on the March 2005 Current
Population Survey from the U.S. Census and other recent data, the Pew Hispanic Center
estimated that at as of March 2006 there were between 11.5 and 12 million unauthorized migrants
24
living in the United States. According to the U.S. Immigration and Nationalization Service in
2000, about 40% are in the country on expired visas.
Not surprisingly, there are a number of official and unofficial names for these different
classes of persons. Following World War II, thousands of persons in Europe were labeled
Displaced Persons and held in DP camps until they could be returned to their countries of
origin or find another place to go. In the United States, the terms illegal immigrants,
undocumented persons, unauthorized alien, and unauthorized migrants all refer to the
same basic group: persons who lack current, official authorization to be in the country.
The Right of a Child to an Education
In 1989, the United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 44/25, The
Convention on the Rights of the Child. This Convention, approved by 192 member states,
spells out many human, economic, and social rights and protections for children regardless of
their country of residence or origin. Article 28 of the Convention deals with education. It says in
part that signatories recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to achieving
this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall, in particular: (a) Make
primary education compulsory and available free to all; (b) Encourage the development of
different forms of secondary education, including general and vocational education, make them
available and accessible to every child.
The Convention makes no distinction among children with different kinds of legal status
in a country, and each country decides for itself how to fulfill their obligations under the
Convention. Many countries also made explicit reservations about certain articles of the
Convention when they signed it; the Federal Republic of Germany noted, for example, that
nothing in the Convention may be interpreted as implying that unlawful entry by an alien into
the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany or his unlawful stay there is permitted.
Nevertheless, the Convention is an important international standard for how children are treated.
Access to Education by Unauthorized Alien Youth in the United States
According to estimates, hundreds of thousands of undocumented youth are enrolled in
American elementary and secondary schools; most were brought by their parents. More than
400,000 such students have been in the United States for at least five years, and each year nearly
50,000 of them graduate from high schools. For these children, home is the United States.
Their friends, culture, and self-identify are American. Although they do not enjoy legal status,
they can attend public schools because of a decision in 1982 by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the United States, education is not considered a fundamental right - that is, a right
protected by the federal constitution. Instead, education is a responsibility of state governments.
In 1982, the Court heard the case of Plyler v. Doe. A Texas law withheld state funds from local
school districts for the education of children who were not legally admitted into the country. It
also authorized local school districts to not enroll such children. The case was brought by illegal
immigrants who claimed that the Texas law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the
25
Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides that no State shall deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
By a vote of 5-to-4, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects anyone who
is subject to the laws of a state. Writing for the Court, Justice Brennan noted that whatever his
status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a person in any ordinary sense of that term.
The Court also held that the Texas law did not have a rational basis for discriminating against
this class of persons and that, in fact, it would impose a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of
children who were not responsible for their status. Plyler ensures that every child in the U.S.,
regardless of their legal status, is entitled to a free public education through high school.
College Funding for Unauthorized Alien Students: The DREAM Act
In 1996, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Section 505 of this legislation restricted state educational
benefits to unauthorized alien students by making them ineligible for any state loans or
scholarships to public colleges and universities; these students were already ineligible for federal
financial aid. These two policies left most of these students without a chance to attend college.
In 2004, the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act, was
proposed in Congress by Senator Orrin Hatch (R) of Utah, Senator Richard Durbin (D) of
Illinois, and others. This policy was intended to provide undocumented high school students who
wished to attend college or serve in the armed forces a legal opportunity to pursue and get
financial help for these goals. Qualifying students had to: not have a criminal record; have entered
the U.S. before they were 16 and lived in the country for at least five years; and have graduated
from high school or its equivalent. At present, the DREAM Act has not been enacted.
The DREAM Act: Supporters and Opponents
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D) of California, a co-sponsor of the DREAM Act, said that I
believe it is in the national interest to provide talented students who have clearly embraced the
American Dream the incentive to take the path towards being a responsible, contributing, law
abiding member in our civic society.
Advocates also believe that the DREAM Act is smart policy. Since Americans cannot
expect that every unauthorized non-citizen can be deported from the country, providing an
education for every child - citizen and non-citizen - is both wise and fair. Otherwise, these
undocumented young people will grow up without an education and remain on the margins of
society. After all, the best way to learn about being a citizen is to go to school. By receiving a
publicly funded education, these young people will be encouraged to become full participants in
democratic life.
Other supporters say that education is a human right. Undocumented children did not
decide to enter the country by themselves - their parents made that decision. Public education for
both citizens and non-citizens fulfills a basic need of every person in our democracy. Education
today reasonably includes the opportunity to attend college for those students who are ready
26
academically. Such a policy does not create a special privilege for these youth: it levels the playing
field by removing barriers that currently prevent them from reaching their full potential.
Opponents argue that the DREAM Act sends the wrong message. They see this and
other programs for unauthorized immigrants as a reward for illegal behavior. Phyllis Schlafly, the
founder of Eagle Forum, has argued that there was no misunderstanding about what this law
means, either when Congress passed it or when President Clinton signed it illegal aliens are
not eligible for in-state tuition rates at public institutions of higher education. The DREAM Act
will only encourage more families to enter the country illegally so that their children can benefit.
The result punishes citizens and mocks legal immigrants who have played by the rules.
Opponents also argue that the cost of providing a college education to unauthorized
aliens will come at the expense of students who are citizens. DREAM will place American
citizens in direct competition with illegal aliens for scarce slots in freshmen classes at state
colleges and universities. This is a massive giveaway of higher education while awarding the illegal
alien students with an amnesty, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform
(FAIR). This massive giveaway of higher education to illegal aliens comes at a time when every
state university system is raising tuition and cutting education benefits.
Opponents also say that the supporters of the DREAM Act fundamentally
misunderstand what has always been a central purpose of American public education: preparing
young people for citizenship. Investing public dollars to teach people who are not citizens w ould
be wasteful and foolish. Ultimately, every country provides its citizens with special benefits and
privileges over non-citizens. Public higher education is one such benefit of citizenship.
5. Providing publicly funded higher education does not give unauthorized alien students any
special privileges. It merely removes barriers that currently prevent them from reaching
their full potential.
28
A democratic government is responsible for protecting the lives of all its citizens. A
central democratic principle, however, is that each person is autonomous (self-governing): people
have control over their own lives. Finding the balance between these two principles often creates
conflict.
While most citizens in a democracy want to protect life, they also believe and expect that
they make their own personal decisions, particularly about their own bodies - to travel where they
wish, eat and wear what they want, even decorate their bodies as they desire. People also assume
that this right of control over their bodies extends to matters of life and death. For example, all
democratic societies outlaw the cruel or unusual punishment of humans.
Many people believe that the right to live autonomously includes the right to decide when
and how they end their own lives, particularly when life means facing a terminal illness,
depression, or terrible pain. Yet many people around the world, because of their religious
teachings, see end-of-life decisions not as personal choices but social responsibility; they oppose
permitting suicide or enabling someone else to die. These divergent beliefs about protecting life
and preserving autonomy come into conflict when people discuss whether the government
should permit physicians to assist patients with suicide.
Euthanasia
Euthanasia, or easy death, means allowing or enabling people to die in a relatively
painless way. The debate over euthanasia goes back at least to the time of Hippocrates, the
ancient Greek physician known as the Father of Medicine. The Hippocratic Oath says in part, "I
will neither give a deadly drug to anyone if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this
effect." Many medical schools still follow Hippocrates original promise, but others have adopted
different oaths of conduct that permit physicians to participate in euthanasia.
When people talk about euthanasia, they refer to one or more of these practices:
Right to Refuse Treatment: A competent adult has the legal right to refuse treatment even if
this refusal will result in death.
Passive Euthanasia: Under certain circumstances, family members may request that life
sustaining machines or treatment be stopped for patients with little or no hope of
regaining consciousness.
Double Effect: A patient may request his or her physician to administer powerful drugs
such as morphine to ease unbearable pain and suffering. The patient knows that these
drugs are also likely to bring death more quickly.
29
euthanasia call the slippery slope that gradually leads to cases of individuals who seemingly
have a duty to die.
Who Decides When to Die?
In 1975, Karen Ann Quinlan, a New Jersey (U.S.) 21-year-old, was in a persistent
vegetative state caused by her taking a mixture of drugs and alcohol. Doctors told her parents
that there was little hope she would ever regain consciousness. Karens parents asked a court for
permission to remove her from a respirator (breathing machine). The New Jersey Supreme Court
eventually agreed with their request, ruling that a person had the right to refuse medical
treatment. In the 1990 decision Cruzan v. Missouri, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of
patients to refuse or discontinue life-sustaining medical treatment.
In 1991, voters in the State of Washington (U.S.) turned down a ballot initiative that
would have permitted physician aid in dying. Shortly afterward, the Washington state
legislature passed a law forbidding physician-assisted suicide. Opponents challenged the law in
the courts, arguing that competent terminally ill adults had a fundamental liberty right to have
physician assistance in committing suicide. In the 1997 decision Washington v. Glucksberg, the
U.S. Supreme Court disagreed; instead, the Court left the decision to each state.
Death with Dignity?
Today, Oregon is the only U.S. state that permits doctors to assist the suicide of
terminally ill persons. Oregon voters in 1994 approved a ballot initiative called the Death with
Dignity Act. This law allows Oregon physicians to prescribe, but not administer, drugs to assist
the suicide of terminally ill patients who expect to die within six months. Such persons may or
may not be experiencing pain. The law, however, prohibits physician-assisted suicide for persons
who suffer from psychological disorders such as depression. As it turns out, depression (which
can be treated) is a greater factor in requests for physician-assisted suicide than unrelieved pain.
Oregon has followed this law since 1998. Fewer than 50 people per year have been prescribed
these medications.
Opponents of euthanasia point out that the Oregon law fails to require doctors to try
palliative care, an approach that focuses on the prevention and relief of patient suffering, to
ease the death of their patients. They note that depression, the most common reason given by
people who want to commit suicide, is treatable. With medication for pain and depression, caring
hospice facilities, and the love of family and friends, patients can die in peace and with dignity
without having to resort to suicide. Medical schools in the United States are beginning to train
doctors in palliative-care strategies. Critics also worry that events in the United States will follow
the Dutch experience, with physician-assisted suicide leading to active euthanasia and then
involuntary euthanasia on people with mental illness, devastating diseases, or who simply are no
longer wanted.
The debate about physician-assisted suicide will continue, and Hippocrates description of
medicine remains as true today as it was 2,000 years ago: "Life is short and the art long, the
occasion instant, experiment perilous, decision difficult."
31
32
Almost all 192 members in the United Nations have agreed to follow the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 of that Declaration states that Everyone has the right
to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless
of frontiers. In the words of the non-governmental organization Freedom House, The perative
word is everyone. To deny that doctrine is to deny the universality of information freedom - a
basic human right.
Democracies believe that free expression is essential to their societies. Free expression,
they argue, distinguishes them from non-democratic countries. Even democracies, however, limit
or prohibit certain kinds of speech they consider harmful or dangerous. An example of this
tension between free expression and other democratic values is hate speech - speech that
promotes hatred or violence against other persons or groups in society.
The Role of Free Expression in Democratic Societies
Self-government requires that citizens have accurate, adequate, and current information
about issues facing their society. When ideas can be heard, examined, and questioned, society can
develop culturally, economically, and scientifically. Free expression also allows people to vent
their anger or frustration with the government and with other problems. It therefore decreases
the likelihood that people will turn to violent means to express themselves. Freedom of
expression remains one of the most basic rights in a democracy.
Democratic Government: Protector and Regulator of Free Expression
Democratic governments in both North America and Europe protect freedom of
expression. They also retain certain powers to limit it. For example, the First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press. Yet freedom of speech has never been considered absolute in the United States. In
recent years the U.S. Supreme Court has increased protections for those who support unpopular
ideas. American civic educators Lee Arbetman and Ed OBrien note, however, that the Court has
also held that the government retains the power to limit or punish the content of certain kinds of
speech, such as obscenity, commercial speech, defamation, fighting words, and incitement.
Other countries laws also balance protections and limits on freedom of expression. The
48-nation Council of Europe states in Article 10 of its Convention on Human Rights that
Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. without interference by public authority and
regardless of frontiers. Yet Article 10 also includes a long list of exceptions. This freedom can
be limited to prevent crime and protect national security, public safety, the public health and
morality, the judiciary, and the reputation or rights of others. The Council includes Azerbaijan,
Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, the Russian Federation, Serbia, and
Ukraine.
33
British restrictions on their rights. As one result, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
protects freedom of expression. Yet after independence, the United States sanctioned legal
slavery for millions of persons of African descent. Only after 80 years and a civil war did
Americans abolish slavery. Another century passed before African Americans began to gain thei r
full and equal rights, often in the face of vicious racism and violent resistance.
As one result, many American cities and states have identified certain symbolic acts as
hate speech. For over 50 years, Virginia had a law forbidding the burning of a cross with an
intent to intimidate a person or group of persons. The law stated that a burning cross in itself
was sufficient evidence of an intent to intimidate. In 1998, Barry Black burned a cross at a
small rally of the Ku Klux Klan held on private property. Black had the permission of the lands
owner, who also participated. A police officer observed the burning cross and arrested Black.
Black was found guilty of violating the anti-cross burning law. He appealed his decision to
the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2003, the Court made a distinction between the act of burning the
cross and the intent of the persons who burned it. The Court held that the First Amendment
permits Virginia to outlaw cross burnings done with the intent to intimidate. However, the
Court also held that the act of cross-burning can be protected expression: if a burning cross were
used at a political rally, for example, it would be a statement of ideology or group solidarity. The
act of cross burning cannot be unconstitutional, the Court said, because such a law might infringe
on the lawful political speech at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect
(Virginia v. Black, 2003).
Prohibiting Hate Speech: Supporters and Opponents
Some people believe that hate speech is not a crime. They think that although certain
expressions are painful and hateful, they are a small price to pay for freedom. What is legal is not
necessarily acceptable or desirable. The better way to counter hateful expression is to condemn
such thoughts and to shun those who say them. With arguments, persuasion, and even loving
speech, everyone can use free expression to promote the kind of society he or she desires.
Others who would permit hate speech argue that laws prohibiting it are unworkable. Such
laws require the government to determine the intent of the speaker. This is a difficult and often
impossible task. If a word or symbol can mean something to one person and something very
different to another person, then the law is the wrong way to classify such expressions. The
government can use its time better by punishing hateful actions, not presumed hateful intent.
People who want to punish hate speech argue that there is no absolute freedom of
expression. Instead, society must decide - through its laws - the limits of free speech. By
prohibiting hate speech, government balances freedom of expression with other democratic
values like respect and tolerance. If government gets the balance wrong, then the people can
always change it.
Opponents also believe that punishing hate speech increases equal protection for all
persons, not only the powerful. Hate speech directed against marginal or despised minority
35
groups is particularly damaging. It strikes against persons who lack power. Punishing hateful
speech helps prevent unequal power relations from turning into overt discrimination.
People who would permit hate speech worry that laws punishing it will have the effect of
chilling free speech: people will be less likely to say what they really mean. They argue that once
the government has the power to punish expression, the definition of prohibited speech will
grow. Governments should be permitted to control only what people can and cannot do, not
what they say or believe.
People who would not permit hate speech also worry about its chilling effect: a
message of hate, spoken once, can be more powerful than a message of tolerance spoken many
times. History has shown that speech is frequently the first act of persecution against specific
persons and groups. Punishing hate speech establishes necessary and appropriate limits on what
can be said in a democratic society.
The struggle to balance freedom of expression with dignity and respect for all remains a
central challenge for every democracy.
36
37
Every country has the right to control who crosses its borders, but people have always
moved from one country to another in search of work. Today, millions of people cross national
borders. The United Nations estimated in 2005 that the number of migrants worldwide exceeded
190 million people. Because many democracies need workers, they offer work visas and other
temporary arrangements for people to live and work in their countries. Entry restrictions,
however, are often severe. Due to desperate economic conditions in their home countries,
millions of people enter richer, more democratic nations illegally in search of work.
While foreign workers do not have the privileges and responsibilities of citizens in
democracies, these workers are also human beings who have certain basic rights. Democracies try
to create a fair and legal system in which both citizen and foreign workers can participate. One
proposed solution is a guest worker program.
Migration and Work: Tensions and Opportunities
People have moved from one place to another to find work since before the creation of
the modern nation state. Sometimes workers were invited or encouraged to work in new places
by either the host or parent government. In the eighteenth century, for example, the czars invited
German artisans to settle in and help modernize that country. The East India Trading Company,
created by Great Britain in the seventeenth century, openly encouraged settlers to come and work
in territories where it did business. At other times, such as in the settlement of the American
colonies and later the United States, people were lured by the prospect of work, wealth, and a
fresh start. Sometimes such programs were primarily for single men, such as Chinese immigrant
workers in the nineteenth century American West. On other occasions, whole families went to
work and live in a new land.
The privileges of workers in other countries also varied according to time and place. In
many cases, workers had specific privileges established through royal decree. Often, however,
there were limitations on the ability to buy land, on participation in certain trades, and on
activities such as seeking religious converts. How long workers planned or were permitted to stay
also varied from place to place, from a few years to centuries. Rarely were foreign workers, as a
group, permitted to adopt the political powers and privileges of citizenship.
Migrant workers have always evoked strong and often contradictory emotions in their
host countries. On the one hand, these nations have work, often in low-skill, low-paying jobs,
that immigrants are willing to do. In Russia alone, there are an estimated 10 to 12 million foreign
workers, many of them from Azerbaijan, Georgia, and other former Soviet republics. Russia
relies tremendously on immigrant labor, because it is facing a very difficult demographic crisis,
says John Litwack of the World Bank. It is in Russias interests to maintain favorable conditions
for migrants, particularly from the former Soviet Union. Most are working without
authorization. Similar demands for workers can be found in the United States, Germany, the
Czech Republic, the Baltic countries, and in Scandinavia.
38
On the other hand, native workers and ordinary citizens frequently oppose immigration.
American history is replete with examples of anti-immigration laws, attitudes, protests, and even
violence, and there are similar feelings and actions today. In Russia, anti-immigration sentiment
led to the enactment of a new law in 2007 that limits foreign workers and includes increased
police action against illegal workers. Citizens worry about the economic consequences of illegal
and foreign workers, who often work for low pay because they are afraid to protest their labor
conditions. Citizens also fear that their national identities and democratic traditions will be
overwhelmed by immigrants with different customs and languages.
Gastarbeiter and Braceros: Historical Examples of Guest Worker Programs
Democracies attempt to balance the benefits and challenges of immigration through
many means, including temporary worker programs. Two twentieth-century examples are useful
for study: the gasterbeiter program in West Germany and the braceros program in the United States.
Germany: After the Second World War, the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany)
experienced a labor shortage. In response, it recruited foreign migrants to work in the country
temporarily. According to Veysel Oezcan of the Social Science Centre Berlin, these migrants,
called gastarbeiter (guest workers), came to work mostly in industrial jobs that required few highlevel skills. Using a rotation principle, the mostly male migrants were required to return home
after one or two years in order to make room for other guest workers. By 1973 when the
program ended, West Germany hosted four million foreigners - 6.7 percent of the countrys
population. Nearly one in four foreign workers came from Turkey.
The idea, originally, said Michael Bommes of the Institute for Migration Research in
Germany, was that the foreign workers would stay as long as economically necessary, then go
home. It didnt quite go like that. Instead, many gastarbeiter stayed longer than their original term.
Work was prosperous and benefited both employers and workers. When the program ended,
there were no jobs to return to in their home country, and the great majority of gasterbeiter stayed
in West Germany. Rich Jones and Heather McGregor of the Bell Policy Center in Colorado
explain that because the program was billed as temporary, neither the German government nor
migrant Turks made much effort at assimilation. As a result, many Turks live in rough
neighborhoods with high unemployment and second-rate schools, and many still don't speak
German. Until recently, children who were born in Germany of gasterbeiter parents were not
granted German citizenship and were considered foreigners under the law; a change in 2000
made citizenship easier for persons not of German ancestry. We came as guest workers and 40
years later we are still guest workers, said Recep Tuerkoglu, a Turkish leader in Germany. But
the third generation will be German.
United States: Between 1942 and 1964, some 4.6 million Mexicans were admitted to the
United States as braceros or guest workers to fill jobs on U.S. farms, according to Philip Martin of
the Center for Migration Studies. The program was instituted during the First World War, the
Second World War, and the first decades of the Cold War to cover wartime emergencies
caused by labor shortages. Like the West German program, the U.S. program emphasized
unskilled labor. Unlike the Turkish gastarbeiter, however, the Mexican braceros (the Spanish word
for laborers) came from a country bordering the United States; in fact, many states in the
39
United States were part of Mexico until the Mexican-American War of 1848. As one result, many
unauthorized Mexican agricultural workers joined the legal braceros in working on American
farms. The fluid nature of the migrants work and the generally open border policies of Mexico
and the United States led to a relatively easy transition for these workers from home to host
country and back again. Many decided to stay in the United States.
Martin concludes from the experience in Germany and the United States that there is
nothing more permanent than temporary workers.
Democracies and Guest Worker Programs
Although guest worker programs differ in specific details, they generally share common
features. They are designed to add foreign workers to the labor force without increasing the
permanent resident population. Workers are permitted into the host country only for a specific
period of time. They hold a different status from regular immigrants who have the opportunity to
become citizens. In addition, guest workers are usually sponsored by a specific employer.
The European Union introduced in 2007 an initiative to create a temporary visa program
with African countries to promote circular migration - that is, sending countries incentives to
make sure their nationals return home and instituting penalties if they dont (Gerson, 2007). The
hope is to create a better, more successful version of the gasterbeiter system.
The United States already has a guest worker program of sorts, but various proposals
have been made in response to the pressure created by unauthorized immigration. Former U.S.
President George W. Bush, for example, proposed a guest worker program based on three
principles :
1. Guest workers would be hired only for jobs that Americans have not taken;
2. guest workers would work only for a limited period of time before a required trip home;
those who failed to leave would become ineligible for legal immigration status or for
citizenship;
3. the number of guest workers permitted under the program would depend on what the
American economy required. Foreign workers now in the country illegally would be
required to pay a substantial penalty and go to the back of the line when applying for
citizenship.
Guest Worker Programs: Supporters and Opponents
Supporters of guest worker programs argue that people will continue to look for work
where jobs are available, whether they can work legally or not. Democracies, however, depend on
the rule of law. A guest worker program provides a legal structure for immigrants who want to
work but not permanently settle in the country. They argue that guest worker programs provide
specific legal protections in the workplace. Unlike illegal migrants, whose labor and safety can be
exploited, a guest worker program makes sure that the basic rights of all workers are protected in
the workplace. A guest worker program also makes better use of limited law enforcement
40
resources, by letting police devote time and money to hunting criminals, smugglers, and even
terrorists who try to enter undetected instead of ordinary people just looking for temporary work.
In addition, supporters say that guest worker programs can help the nation meet the ebbs
and flows of worldwide economic forces. Because of globalization, workers cannot sit still and
wait for jobs to come to them. By permitting foreign workers to come and go as the economy
requires, democracies and workers both benefit.
Guest worker programs also recognize that the needs of temporary workers and of
immigrants are different. Temporary workers just want to make money to send back to their
families or to return to their host countries as richer people. By contrast, immigrants want a new
life in a new land. A guest worker program deals with the needs of temporary foreign workers
and leaves the regular immigration process intact. This distinction helps everyone - guest worker,
immigrant, and citizen - and promotes social harmony.
Opponents of guest worker programs see no real difference between an immigrant and a
temporary foreign worker. When guest workers remain without proper authorization, they enter
the illegal underground economy the program was supposed to eliminate. Capturing and
deporting guest workers who do not want to leave will only increase the legal, social, and
international costs associated with other illegal immigrants.
Critics also suggest that guest worker programs are really designed to avoid paying all
workers a living wage. To compete, employers of citizens and legal immigrants will have to keep
their own labor costs down, leaving the workers with less money and fewer benefits.
In addition to economic costs, opponents also worry about the democratic costs of a guest
worker program. Having different rules for two groups of legal workers means one group is
second-class and more likely to suffer exploitation. Moreover, legal immigrants will be forced to
prove they are rightly here, creating resentment and increasing tensions with the police. The legal
apparatus necessary to monitor guest workers may seep into the legal system for citizens, thus
reducing everyones rights.
Far from promoting harmony, critics argue, guest worker programs foster alienation.
Guest workers get fewer benefits and privileges than citizen workers, and they lack any incentive
to integrate into the larger society. As a result, guest workers lack incentives to be good citizens
and form their own closed communities that are mistrusting within and mistrusted without.
These conditions can lead to unrest, violence, and even terrorism.
In the end, workers are people, with human needs, dreams, and rights. Creating ways for
workers, employers, and countries to interact to the benefit of all remains a recurring democratic
problem.
41
underground economy that the program was supposed to eliminate in the first place.
Capturing and deporting guest workers who do not want to leave will only increase the
legal, social, and international costs associated with other illegal immigrants.
3. A guest worker program is a way to avoid paying all workers a living wage. People will do
any job: the real question is what employers are willing to pay and what people want to be
paid to do it. Because guest workers are a captive work force who cannot complain about
about wages or working conditions, employers of citizens and legal immigrants will have
to keep their own labor costs down, leaving the workers with less money and few
benefits.
4. A guest worker program is at odds with democratic principles. Having two sets of rules
for two groups of workers means having two sets of rights. Because of their second-class
status, guest workers are more likely to suffer exploitation and less likely to report abuse.
Guest workers will experience the same problems that unauthorized migrants experience
now.
5. A guest worker program will have significant negative consequences for the legal rights of
citizens and legal immigrants. Legal immigrants will be forced to prove that they are
rightly here, creating resentment and increasing tensions with the police. The legal
apparatus needed to monitor guest workers will seep into the legal system, reducing
everyones rights.
6. Guest worker programs foster alienation and social unrest. Guest workers get fewer
benefits and privileges than citizen workers, a situation that often creates resentment.
Without incentives to be good citizens and integrate into the larger society, guest workers
form their own insular communities. These conditions can lead to violence and even
terrorism.
43
A free press meets many needs in a democracy. It exposes government mistakes and
corruption that officials may want to keep quiet. It allows ideas to be publicly heard, examined,
and questioned. This free flow of ideas and information enables people to make informed
decisions about public issues - an essential activity of self-government.
In Europe and the United States, television is the primary source of information for most
people. Maintaining citizen access to information is challenging when all or most broadcast media
outlets are monopolized by powerful individuals, corporations, or the government itself.
Democratic Government: Protector and Regulator of a Free Press
European democracies generally try to protect and regulate press freedom and peoples
access to information through law. The Russian Constitution, for example, states that the
freedom of mass communication shall be guaranteed censorship shall be banned. However, it
also reserves the right to determine the list of data comprising state secrets by federal law. In
the United States, decisions of the Supreme Court have largely shaped press freedom. While the
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads, Congress shall make no law abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press, these freedoms have never been absolute. Throughout U.S.
history, the government has attempted to limit press freedom on several grounds. These include
national security and interference with a national war effort.
The Cost of Independence: Money and Media Access
The U.S. journalist A. J. Liebling once said that freedom of the press is guaranteed only
to those who own one. Even when the law protects the media, it does not pay the cost of
running a media outlet. Media need money to remain independent.
Funding for broadcast media comes almost exclusively from advertisers. Advertisers buy
time or space to display their products and services during a broadcast. They also pay to sponsor
events. McDonalds, Samsung, and Visa are all sponsors of the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing.
Sponsors can insist that no competitor advertise during the same event. For example, if CocaCola is an Olympic sponsor, then Pepsi Cola wont be advertised or sold at the Games.
Adequate funding for broadcast media is a problem around the world, particularly in
regional or local markets. Andrey Richter, director of the Moscow Media Law and Policy
Institute, notes that the failure of the media advertising market to develop outside the major
population centers has a negative effect on economic sustainability and the independence of
regional mass media.
44
independent board of governors for policy and a management group for day -to-day affairs. Most
also have programming guidelines. The success of these measures in keeping public service
television independent varies by country. In the Czech Republic, for example, television
journalists report no direct pressure from the government. They do, however, receive indirect
pressure from members of parliament, who condemn critical or investigative reports. In other
countries, public service television transmits the governments preferred message.
Large television networks also may limit the amount of programming by and for minority
communities. In Europe, there is very little minority programming. Nowhere are quotas
imposed on commercial broadcasters for any programming directed at linguistic and ethnic
minorities (OSI/EU Monitoring and Advocacy Program, 2005). Even among public service
broadcasters, only Macedonia has laws requiring a certain quota of minority programming. In the
United States, federal laws and guidelines only require reporting the number of broadcast media
licenses that are owned by women or racial minorities. Less than 10% of the 13,000 U.S. licensed
stations are controlled by female or minority concerns (FCC, 2004-2005). There is no U.S.
requirement to report the amount of minority programming that is broadcast.
Monopoly Control in Broadcast Media: Whats the Problem?
In large countries, such as Russia and the United States, many people believe that bigger
can be better for media independence. Small local outlets work in isolation from each other and
have small budgets, so the government may more easily threaten or hide the big picture from
them. By contrast, big media organizations have the economic strength and geographic reach
necessary to stand up to the government. Even in smaller democracies, such as Estonia, media
consolidation has had a strengthening effect for media independence.
Opponents of broadcast media consolidation worry about the loss of local control. Czech
journalist Jan Urban notes that there is a nearly absolute monopoly in electronic media as well as
in the advertising market (OConnor, 2004) in the Czech Republic. When a few corporations
monopolize the market, says CNN founder Ted Turner, thats like a dictator deciding what
candidates are allowed to stand for parliamentary elections and then claiming that the people
choose their leaders (Turner, 2004).
One model for protecting against monopoly control comes from the Lithuanian
constitution. It states that censorship of mass media shall be prohibited and that the State,
political parties, political and public organizations, and other institutions or persons may not
monopolize means of mass media. Until recently, the United States also prohibited media
companies from owning more than one television station in a medium-sized or smaller market.
Supporters of large media organizations say such limits are unnecessary because the
nature of mass media is changing. In 2003, for example, the U.S. Federal Communications
Commission argued that policies limiting media ownership consolidation did not account for
such alternatives as cable and the internet. These new technologies would enable communities
and individuals to access diverse views without additional government controls on media
ownership.
46
Opponents of media monopolies respond that the crucial issue is how many people a
medias outlet can reach. A pamphlet printed in a basement reaches far fewer readers than Izvestia
or the Washington Post. As U.S. law professor James Barron has written, The test of a
communitys opportunities for free expression rests not so much in an abundance of alternative
media but rather in an abundance of opportunities to secure expression in media with the largest
impact.
Whether through regulations, court decisions, technology, or market forces, how societies
decide to keep mass media free and independent may determine their futures as democracies.
47
48
Polar bears can swim up to 100 miles before drowning. They swim to hunt seals - their
favorite food - and seals can be found on sea ice. If the ice disappears and polar bears are far
from land, they die. Unfortunately, the polar ice cap is melting as temperatures in the Arctic
continue to rise. As a result, more polar bears are drowning when they try to catch seals in the
ocean but cannot find ice on which to rest. More bears are also staying on land, where they must
scavenge for food and travel inland when they cannot find food on the beaches. Sadly, one bear
recently wandered into an Alaskan village looking for food and was killed because it threatened
peoples safety (Halpin, 2008). Unless changes in the global climate are checked, experts predict
that two-thirds of the polar bear population will disappear by 2050 (Revkin, 2007).
Polar bears are not the only species that will be affected by global climate change. A 2003
U.S. Department of Defense report acknowledged that climate change is occurring and
recognized the potential for relatively abrupt change. Such change, the Department said, could
result in skirmishes, battles, and even war due to food shortages, the loss of freshwater,
interruptions in energy supplies, and the migrations of millions of desperate people (Schwartz
and Randall, 2003). UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has said that global climate change
poses a threat to humanity and the planet that is as grave as war (Osborne, 2007). Most national
leaders now agree that something must be done soon to avert a catastrophe. Countries are
particularly interested in reducing the harmful effects of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon
dioxide (CO2). Cap-and-trade policies offer one way to do so.
What Are Greenhouse Gases and the Greenhouse Effect?
For more than 100 years, scientists have known about the greenhouse effect. Radiation
from the sun passes through the atmosphere and strikes the Earths surface. Instead of bouncing
back into space, the radiation is trapped by the atmosphere and becomes heat. This process keeps
the Earth from becoming cold and hostile to life. Over the past few centuries, human activities
like farming, heating, and industry have increased the amount of CO2 and other gas emissions
that trap the suns radiation. Together, these emissions are called greenhouse gases.
Of course, the Earth can become warmer naturally, but scientists estimate that most
emissions that are warming the atmosphere come from burning fossil fuels like coal, oil, and
gasoline. The United States, with less than 5% of the worlds population, is responsible for 22%
of greenhouse gases that humans produce; China, with almost 20% of the worlds population, is
the next largest producer with 18% (U.S. Emissions in a Global Perspective, 2007). The
burning of forests - to clear land for farming, roads, and housing and commercial developments
- accounts for up to 25% of CO2 emissions worldwide (Mitchell et al., 2007).
The UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that during the past
200 years (the era of the Industrial Revolution), levels of CO2 in the atmosphere rose by about
30%. The IPCCs 2007 report noted that most of the increase in global average temperatures in
49
the past 50 years is very likely due to human activities. The IPCC forecasts that growing
concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will dramatically increase the Earths
temperature, resulting in more droughts, declines in crop yields, and even famine in poorer
countries. Insects will thrive and insect-borne diseases like malaria will expand. Increasingly
violent storms, gathering additional energy from a warmer ocean, will threaten life. In addition to
losing polar bears and the Arctic ecosystem, scientists estimate that numerous animal, bird, and
fish species will become extinct, as other ecosystems change or disappear.
Limiting Carbon: The Kyoto Protocol and Cap-and-Trade Systems
Today, countries are using different strategies to limit CO2 emissions. A total of 174
countries have signed the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 agreement that aims to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Of these, 36 countries are required to reduce their emissions, while 137 developing
countries - including China, the second-largest producer of carbon emissions - are required only
to monitor and report their emissions. The United States, the worlds largest producer of carbon
emissions, originally signed the Kyoto Protocol but never ratified it. Nevertheless, the United
States and other non-participants in the Kyoto Protocol are still studying ways to reduce
emissions.
In addition to using the Kyoto Protocol and other treaties to reduce CO2 emissions,
many governments are creating economic incentives. The European Union has developed a
specific policy called the Emissions Trading System (ETS). Begun in 2005, ETS is one kind of
cap-and trade system. Under cap-and-trade, a country or group of countries sets a limit (or cap)
on the amount of a pollutant that can be released into the atmosphere. Companies or specific
sectors of the economy - such as energy or manufacturing - are permitted a number of credits
that represent just how much pollutant they can emit.
In European Union countries, companies or sectors that exceed their CO2 credit limits
have two choices: either they can pay a heavy fine for the extra pollution, or they can buy
pollution credits from other, less polluting companies and industries that do not require them.
Essentially, ETS creates a market in which companies can trade pollutants. This market does
several things:
1. it permits companies that produce large quantities of CO2 to remain in business but also
encourages large emitters to reduce their carbon footprint;
2. it rewards companies that emit less CO2;
3. it allows governments to limit the overall amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere;
4. it uses economic strategies to achieve specific policy goals.
Other countries now use or are considering cap-and-trade systems for regulating CO2
emissions. The Russian Federation uses a program similar to ETS, called joint implementation,
that allows countries with economies-in-transition to create tradeable carbon credits. The United
States, which already has a cap-and-trade system for regulating sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas
emissions, is now debating whether to adopt a similar system for CO2 emissions.
50
major CO2 producers must buy their credits from the government. The government can then use
these funds to support other CO2 reduction strategies such as clean energy sources (wind,
solar, geothermal, tidal). Some environmentalists even prefer a carbon tax on all carbon usage
to encourage everyone to reduce CO2 quickly to avoid environmental catastrophe.
Many business interests oppose taxes as a matter of principle. They believe their primary
responsibility is to make money for their owners or investors, and government regulations are
often seen as attempts to reduce their profits. Thus, some companies prefer cap-and-trade
systems to more direct government mandates because cap-and-trade gives them the flexibility to
decide how they will meet their emissions targets.
Cap-and-trade supporters also argue that companies can both reduce their carbon
emissions and prosper economically without extra costs to their stakeholders. Until recently,
industries needed to pay the costs of monitoring and reporting data to the government.
Reporting took time, cost money, and depended on the honesty of the businesses that provided
it. Today, governments, non-governmental organizations, and even ordinary people can use
satellite data and other resources available via the Internet to monitor CO2 emissions. Therefore,
businesses may no longer have to bear the cost of data collection and reporting or worry about
transparency.
Cap-and-trade is but one example of what former Czech president Vaclav Havel has
called the challenge to behave responsibly. After all, he notes, Technological measures and
regulations are important, but equally important is support for education, ecological training and
ethics - a consciousness of the commonality of all living beings and an emphasis on shared
responsibility (Havel, 2007).
4. Cap-and-trade policies benefit the environment without hurting businesses. More direct
government regulations, like carbon taxes, do not allow businesses the flexibility they
need to reduce carbon emissions without reducing their profits. Cap-and-trade policies,
on the other hand, let businesses decide how they can best reach emission reduction
targets. While some old economy carbon-based jobs will be affected by cap-and-trade,
new jobs and industries will be created to meet the needs of a post-carbon economy.
5. A cap-and-trade system is feasible now that governments and businesses have easy,
cheap, and more transparent ways to monitor CO2 emissions. Today, governments, nongovernmental organizations, and even ordinary people can use satellite data and other
resources via the Internet to monitor CO2 emissions. Therefore, businesses may no
longer have to bear the cost of data collection and reporting or worry about transparency.
Globalization has resulted in stunning changes around the world. Producers and
consumers now buy and sell in a worldwide marketplace: in just days, blue jeans made in Lahore
can be traded in Los Angeles, shipped to Lidice, and sold in Lodz. Money crosses borders almost
instantly. News and ideas speed across the Internet. Today more people are linked to more
information more quickly than ever before. Everything - from making shoes or growing wheat to
preventing terrorism and promoting democracy - is affected, because everything is connected.
The speed and extent of globalization are viewed by some as wonderful and by others as
threatening. In many democracies, ordinary citizens have sought ways to exercise greater
influence and control over global decisions of governments and corporations, particularly i n
matters of trade. An example is the fair trade movement that tries to certify a fair exchange
between producers in poorer countries and consumers in richer countries for a variety of
products. One such product is coffee.
What Is Globalization?
Few subjects have polarized people throughout the world as much as globalization,
notes Nobel Laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz. Some see it as the way of the future, bringing
unprecedented prosperity to everyone, everywhere. Others, like the tens of thousands of people
who demonstrate whenever the World Trade Organization holds its meetings, fault
globalization as the source of untold problems, from the destruction of native cultures to
increasing poverty.
Economist Jagdish Bhagwati defines globalization primarily in terms of economics. In his
view, the efforts by different governments to reduce trade and investment barriers, coupled with
new information technologies, have resulted in an extraordinarily fast delivery of services and
capital between and within nations. Yet with globalization, the buffers of time and space that
once protected local markets are much smaller: Producers in the poor countries are exposed to
increased risks as a result of shifting to world markets in search of greater prosperity.
Religious leader Jonathan Sachs rejects a strictly economic explanation of globalization.
Mankind was not created to serve markets, he argues. Markets were created to serve
mankind. Ironically, the wealth of market choices created by globalization has resulted in a
massive loss of sovereignty over our personal lives. The result, he says, is that when things go
wrong, as at times they must, we are liable to despair, because our destiny rests in other hands,
not our own. A response to this anxiety, he believes, is to define people as more than economic
agents and to take back responsibility for personal and social choices, particularly in commerce.
Coffee has been a focus of international commerce since Arab merchants first brought it
out of Ethiopia and began to trade it 1,000 years ago. Today, the global coffee market is worth
more than $80 billion annually, and coffee is second only to oil as the most traded commodity on
the planet. Yet according to Transfair, a fair trade group, over half of the worlds coffee is
produced by small family farmers. As Bhagwati says:
Farmers who shift from traditional staples to cash crops (like coffee) because of higher
returns at current prices face the prospect that this shift will lead them into ruination if
rivals elsewhere with lower prices suddenly move into the market. . . . Since few farmers
in the poor countries are likely to take these downside possibilities into account, sudden
misery is a possibility.
The problems of local growers were recently strikingly demonstrated in the documentary
film Black Gold. The film follows Tadesse Meskela, the General Manager of the Oromia Coffee
Farmers Co-operative Union in Ethiopia, who spends most of his time traveling the world to
find coffee buyers who will pay his farmers a better price than that set by the international
commodities exchange. He represents over 100 cooperatives made up of 74,000 Ethiopian coffee
farmers and close to one-half million members of their families. Without increasing the price of
coffee, these farmers face bankruptcy. Our hope is one day the consumer will understand what
they are drinking, says Meskela. Consumers can bring a change if awareness is given to
consumers. It is not only on coffee, all products are getting a very low price - and the producers
are highly affected. Without the ability to deal directly with purchasers, most small coffee
growers must sell their crops to middlemen, often at less than half its market value.
Free Trade
For many supporters of globalization, a central belief is that free trade - trade without
governmental taxes or subsidies (price supports) - promotes economic growth for everyone,
because a free market enables the best products and services to be produced at the best price. Yet
the process of creating free trade has been uneven and inconsistent. Some developed nations,
for example, are critical of tariffs (taxes) placed on their agricultural products by poorer nations in
Africa and South America. Wealthy countries, however, often subsidize their own agricultural
producers, leaving small farmers in developing nations at a disadvantage.
With coffee, some corporations are responding to the circumstances farmers face.
Starbucks Corporation, the giant American coffee producer, follows its own voluntary program
for mutually-beneficial relationships with the coffee farmers and coffee communities. Another
response to the precarious condition of farmers is the fair trade movement.
Fair Trade
Promoters of fair trade say that it can provide basic economic supports and protections
for farmers. According to the Fair Trade Federation, fair trade works by guaranteeing a
minimum wage for small producers harvests and by encouraging sustainable cultivation
methods. Fair trade farmers also receive badly needed credit and are assured a minimum price.
55
For example, the fair trade price per pound of coffee is $1.26 (USD). In comparison, the world
price is around $1.00 (USD) per pound with coffee growers earning less than 50 cents per
pound. If coffee growers received fair wages, they could invest in health, education, and
environmental protection.
The Fair Trade Federation and other organizations use a system of independent
certification to determine whether goods are produced according to fair trade standards. Created
in 1997, the Fairtrade Labeling Organizations International (FLO) is an association of some 20
labeling initiatives, mainly throughout Europe and North America. Certified producers and
products can use a special symbol on coffee and other products. This symbol varies from country
to country.
Organic foods offer an example of how the certification process works. In the United
States and in Europe, governmental agencies certify crops, livestock, and processors as organic
according to government regulations about what kinds of fertilizers and pest controls are used.
Certification has made it easier for consumers and producers to identify and market organic
agricultural products. While organic food certification is conducted by governments in America
and Europe, to date no nation state has adopted a fair trade certification program.
Fair Trade Certification: Supporters and Opponents
Advocates say that providing fair trade certification encourages and rewards ethical
behavior in the marketplace. They note that by sponsoring products that bring a fair wage for
workers overseas, citizens can contribute to global stability and mutual respect. In this way,
establishing certification promotes democratic principles at home and abroad.
Supporters argue that fair trade certification is a perfectly reasonable and responsible
exercise of government power. The government intervenes in foreign and domestic markets
through such means as price subsidies, tariffs, and quotas. Like organic certification, fair trade
certification can serve broader national economic interests, even as it helps domestic consumers.
Certification assures consumers that producers receive a fair price for coffee and other products.
Adopting certification educates consumers and producers while retaining the power of choice. It
represents a good balance between government supports and citizen choices.
In addition, supporters argue that the natural outcome of unregulated markets is
monopoly, not efficiency. For minimal costs, government regulations foster greater citizen
protections at home and better labor practices abroad. This kind of investment promotes
democratic principles through choices, not charity. Government regulations exist to protect the
rights of citizens as well as those of businesses and corporations.
Supporters also say that fair trade certification is smart politics. By guaranteeing a
minimum wage for small producers of coffee and other agricultural products, fair trade helps
people in other countries fight economic or cultural dislocation. More people staying in their
communities and using sustainable farming methods means less urbanization, less pollution, less
urban poverty, and fewer immigrants seeking to flee their countries.
56
Opponents of fair trade certification counter that globalization helps make coffee
production more efficient and profitable; the coffee growers who remain are more efficient and
command better prices for their products. By contrast, government certification will distort the
market and increase costs. Fair trade certification will benefit only inefficient coffee producers.
Besides, argue opponents, coffee shows why fair trade certification is unnecessary. The
free market responds to consumer needs and desires better than government. Markets adjust
quickly to the needs of society: if consumers demand more fair trade coffee, then the market
will respond. By contrast, government regulations respond to political, not economic, forces.
Consumer needs and desires are best met by a free market, not government regulations.
In the end, opponents argue that certification is arbitrary. It imposes a particular moral
viewpoint on everyone else in society. In a world of so many different cultures, people need to
have more tolerance for different values, not less. The free market respects differences without
dictating one right way.
Globalization will continue to bind peoples and countries closer together. How will
individuals and nations use these new opportunities?
urbanization, less pollution, less urban poverty, and fewer immigrants seeking to flee their
countries.
58
The headlines are frightening: two teenagers - one 13 and one 15 - are arrested for beating
an elderly woman to death in the course of a robbery. What will happen to these youthful
offenders? Will they be tried in adult court or a special juvenile court? If they are found guilty,
will they be sentenced to many years in adult prison or be sent to a special facility for youth? To a
large extent, the answers to those questions depend on where the crime was committed. In some
countries and ten states in the United States, the two teenagers may be treated differently.
A central democratic idea is that citizens are equal before the law. Young people,
however, are often treated differently because of their age. They lack many of the privileges and
responsibilities of older citizens, and often they are protected by special laws. Every society
struggles with how to treat adolescents - those persons who are no longer children but who are
not yet considered full adults.
Just as adults are often confused about how to treat teenagers, societies also struggle with
how to deal with youthful offenders. When should the law treat a teenager like a child and when
like an adult? For the past 100 years, societies in Europe and North America have wrestled with
this question. Because of social and legal history, democratic countries have come to different
conclusions on how best to balance the needs of young people and the needs of society. Finding
this balance is particularly challenging when deciding how to punish juveniles who commit
serious violent offenses.
Principles of Adult Criminal Justice
One purpose of government is to protect society. Preventing crime and arresting and
punishing criminals are two ways in which government provides such protection. Thus, a primary
purpose of any criminal justice system is to protect society by apprehending and punishing
criminals.
For adult offenders, punishment has several purposes. One is retribution - punishing the
offenders in proportion to how they have offended against society. A second purpose is
deterrence - discouraging the offender and other people from committing such crimes in the
future. A third purpose is rehabilitation - helping offenders learn to live productive lives. Finally,
punishment also has the purpose of incapacitation - if criminals are imprisoned, they can not
threaten the safety of society. The importance a society places on these different purposes may
vary from time to time, depending on attitudes, trends in crime, and other factors.
In democracies, the criminal justice system also protects the rights of offenders. An
accused person has rights intended to ensure a fair process. These rights may include the right to
an attorney, the right to trial by jury, and the right to confront ones accusers.
59
from what officials termed dysfunctional families. Recently in the Czech Republic, a sensational
murder of an old woman by six youths ages 11 to 15 has also led to discussions of prosecuting
juveniles there as adults.
Shay Bilchik, former head of the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquenc y
Prevention under President Bill Clinton, opposes a get tough policy for juvenile offenders. He
points to the low numbers - about one-half of one percent - of juveniles who are typically
arrested for violent crimes and argues that such a policy does not prevent criminal violence.
Bilchik urges a return to rehabilitation for juvenile offenders. In Russia, the first juvenile court
was established in 2004 as a pilot program for one region of the country. As of 2006, none of the
young people convicted in that court had re-offended. This finding suggests that programs
tailored for young people are effective in preventing offenses by youth.
Those who favor prosecuting more juveniles as adults believe that young people who
commit serious crimes such as murder, rape, armed robbery, or kidnapping must be punished for
their actions. The juvenile justice system, with its emphasis on rehabilitation, puts too many
young criminals back on the streets. The fact that these criminals are young teenagers doesnt
prevent them from committing crimes and ruining lives. Instead, they argue, these young people
should be transferred to the adult court system, where they will receive longer sentences in adult
prisons. Once behind bars, they reason, these young criminals can no longer hurt the community.
They also believe the get tough approach will deter other juveniles from criminal activity.
On the other hand, many juvenile justice experts argue that by putting juveniles in adult
prisons, society in effect abandons hope for young offenders. Adult prisons are designed to
punish offenders, not rehabilitate them. After being punished in adult prisons and being forced
into the company of adult criminals, juvenile offenders may become hardened criminals
themselves. Instead, these experts believe juvenile offenders can grow to understand and take
responsibility for what they have done. Through rehabilitation, these young people can re -enter
society and lead productive lives.
According to law professor Helena Valkova of West Bohemian University, a Czech
juvenile justice law passed in 2003 defines the features of a legal system that is based on the
principle that all measures, procedures, and instruments must be used for the restoration of
broken social relations, the integration of the young person into the wider social environment,
and for delinquency prevention. The Czech system distinguishes between two age groups:
children younger than 15, and juveniles who are 15-17. The emphasis is placed on the general
importance of the notion of responsibility, which applies also to a child who is not yet criminally
responsible, but is able in specific cases to judge his acts and to control them.
In deciding how to judge and punish juvenile offenders, people also look to a growing
body of research about differences between adolescents and adults. Laurence Steinberg, a
psychologist at Temple University who heads the Research Network on Adolescent
Development and Juvenile Justice, argues that adolescents are socially and biologically less mature
than adults and therefore should be treated differently. According to Steinberg, psychological
research reveals that adolescents are less able to foresee the consequences of their actions, less
61
able to control their impulses, and less able to resist peer pressure than adults. We argue that the
reasonable adult standard is not the same as the reasonable adolescent standard.
Steinberg also notes the significance of what biologists are learning about the brain.
Brain maturation is going on much later in development than people had thought, so there is
some reason, perhaps, to say that 17-year-olds are not the same as adults. What we dont know,
and where I think we need to be cautious, is how these structural changes actually play in
behavior. The uncertainty about how to apply the results of brain research parallels the larger
uncertainty about how best to deal with juvenile offenders. As governments try to balance the
need to protect society with the goal of helping young people who have broken the law learn to
live productive lives, citizens must be prepared to deliberate such controversial issues as when, if
ever, juvenile offenders should be tried and punished as adults.
In Europe during the Middle Ages, children took part in adult activities as soon as they
could. Everyone - adults and children - was needed to help grow food, tend the flocks, gather
firewood, and take part in other activities necessary to survive. The average life span was only 40
years. Children were expected to work as adults and to obey adult laws. Anyone old enough to
commit a crime was old enough to be punished for it.
In the 16th and 17th centuries, these attitudes began to soften. While children were still
considered part of adult society and worked from an early age, most of Europe began to think of
them as needing adult protection and guidance. At about this same time, the idea of intent was
developed in the law. The concept of intent - whether a person meant to commit an offense changed how children were treated. In England and other European societies, people came to see
children as naive and innocent. Although children might accidentally cause harm, people did not
believe that children knew enough about right and wrong or about the consequences of their
actions to be tried as adults. These ideas were carried by English colonists to North America and
became part of the laws adopted with the founding of the United States.
Socially and economically, European and American societies underwent great change
during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Often called the Industrial Revolution, this era saw
the birth of steam power, mechanized factories, rail transportation, and new and powerful
national economic policies designed to increase monetary wealth and international trade. The
effects on common people were great and terrible. Peasant farmers and other country dwellers
crowded the newly industrialized cities looking for work and relief from famine, disease, and rural
poverty.
Trapped in dark and dirty tenements with their struggling families, urban children often
escaped to the streets. There, they joined others who had been abandoned by their parents or
62
orphaned in disease-ridden ghettoes. In order to survive, these troubled young people turned to
picking pockets, shoplifting, begging, and looting.
By the end of the 19th century, socially conscious Europeans and Americans were
demanding that the children of this new industrial-age environment needed special care and
attention. They campaigned for child-protection systems that included ending child labor, making
school compulsory, and creating special courts for juvenile offenders.
Norway was the first country to create a modern child-protection system in 1896. The
first justice system for youthful offenders, called a Childrens Court, was established in Chicago
in 1899. Belgium, France, and Switzerland all enacted similar legislation by 1912.
Today, the international community recognizes the need for nations to develop systems
of justice for juvenile offenders. Many United Nations documents establish principles and
standards for juvenile justice systems, and U.N. officials, NGOs, and governments around the
world assess progress being made toward meeting those standards.
63
were before. Through formal education and rehabilitation, juvenile offenders can grow to
understand and take responsibility for what they have done.
3. Placing juveniles in adult prisons where they are punished - not rehabilitated - means that
society is abandoning these young people. They will not have the opportunity to become
productive members of society.
64
In 2001, The Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize same sex
(homosexual) marriage. Prior to that law, only couples consisting of a man and a woman could
marry. After the law passed, Anne-Marie Thus and Helene Fassen became the first same-sex
couple in the world to be officially married. Were totally ordinary, says Thus. In the next few
years, other countries passed similar laws - Belgium in 2003, and Spain and Canada in 2005.
Today, seven countries and five U.S. states recognize same-sex marriage for gay and lesbian
couples.
The Dutch marriage law and others like it have sparked controversy. Many opponents of
same-sex marriage insist that it will lead to destruction of the institution of marriage. These
opponents question the limits of democratic decision-making in overturning long-standing social
customs and institutions.
Defining and Regulating Marriage
Marriage can have both a civil (secular) and a religious element (Andryszewski, 2008). The
state offers civil marriage, which is regulated by the government. A civil marriage grants the legal
rights of marriage to a couple. A religious marriage ceremony also includes two additional
dimensions. The couple vows fidelity to God and their faith tradition. In turn, the couple asks for
and receives sanction from God and the community of believers for their marriage. Religious
institutions such as churches, synagogues, and mosques have their own rules for whom they will
or will not allow to marry.
Most democracies today restrict marriage to heterosexual couples. For example, The
Family Code of the Russian Federation, enacted in 1996, clearly requires the voluntary consent of the
man and the woman in marriage. The Family Code of Lithuania defines marriage as one man and
one woman and prohibits same sex marriage. Indeed, marriage terms indicating a heterosexual
(male and female) relationship are the norm. In the English common law, the tradition that forms
the basis and context for the American legal system, marriage could occur only with the consent
of both parties. While having more than one spouse (polygamy) was practiced in other cultures Moses in the Hebrew Bible had two wives and the Prophet Muhammad in the Quran had four marriage in the English legal tradition was unmistakably between one man and one woman
(Marriage: An Overview, Legal Information Institute).
In most democracies, the national government typically regulates marriage. Marriages in
the United States fall under each state governments lawmaking authority. State governments set
certain rules about marriage, including minimum age requirements for marriage and prohibitions
on marriages between certain close relatives, such as a parent, brother or sister, or aunt or uncle.
All states also limit marriage to monogamy, or two people. As of this writing, every state except
Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont restricts marriage to one man
and one woman. Traditionally, states must honor marriage licenses issued by other states.
65
However, in 1994, the national government passed a law called the Defense of Marriage Act
(DOMA), which allows states to ignore licenses issued to same-sex couples in other states.
Marriage: Responsibilities, Benefits, and Rights
Some important responsibilities go with marriage. Married people share responsibility for
rearing their children and sending them to school; if they fail to take care of their children, the
state can remove their children from their home. They must take care of and pay for any property
they own. Married couples receive some tax breaks; conversely, if one person cheats on taxes, the
spouse is not legally liable, but the couples assets (what they have) may be severely affected.
Divorced individuals must take steps to provide economically, if necessary, for their former
partners.
Getting married brings with it a great many benefits that cover virtually every aspect of a
persons life. In the United States and in Europe, married people can automatically hold joint
property and inherit the property of a loved one who dies without a will. They are protected (in
most cases) from testifying against each other in court. Spouses are entitled to collect health
benefits, unemployment benefits, veterans benefits, and death benefits if their spouse is injured
or dies. Married people automatically have the right to visit a spouse or a child in hospital, and to
take family leave for extended illness or the birth of a child. Any children born to them are
assumed to be theirs.
Some democratic nations and localities have offered civil unions. A civil union is a secular
marriage-like relationship regulated by the government. It allows couples to have some of the
rights that married couples have. In 2006, for example, the Czech Republic passed a law that
allowed same-sex couples to have a type of civil union called a registered partnership. The
partners in this relationship have inheritance rights, the right to appeal court judgments on behalf
of each other, and the privilege not to testify in court against each other, among other rights.
Significantly, registered partnerships, like other civil unions, do not allow the couples to adopt
children, unless they dissolve the partnership and one of the partners adopts as a single parent.
Marriage: Law and Tradition
Many who view marriage as a purely secular or legal relationship - as well as those whose
religious beliefs recognize same-sex marriage - believe marriage rights should belong to gay and
lesbian couples who wish to marry. They believe the government should not discriminate against
same-sex couples by denying those rights.
Those who view marriage as a primarily religious relationship often believe that
government should not extend marital rights to couples in a way that would reject the eachings of
their religious tradition. They argue that redefining marriage offends the fundamental values of
millions of people and contradicts the long-standing representation of a family by a mother,
father, and child or children. In traditional Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, marriage is
understood as a heterosexual institution. Orthodox Christianity and the Catholic Church
explicitly forbid same-sex partnerships of any kind. Islamic law, as well, only recognizes the
validity of marriage between a man and a woman.
66
Today, however, certain Protestant Christian and Jewish denominations have called for
civil recognition of same-sex marriages, and their clergy have performed weddings for gay and
lesbian couples. A few historically Catholic countries also have broken with tradition. Spain
legalized same-sex marriage in 2005, and Slovenia legalized same-sex registered partnerships in
2006. Some parts of historically Catholic Latin America have legalized civil unions. Since 2003,
for example, residents of Buenos Aires, the capital of Argentina, can have same-sex civil unions.
And since 2007, residents of Mexico City, the capital of Mexico, may do so as well.
The predominantly Muslim country of Albania has seen change in marriage laws. In July
2009, Prime Minister Sali Berisha proposed a measure in the parliament to give same-sex couples
the same rights as heterosexual couples. Albanian opponents, including Muslims, Catholics, and
Orthodox Christians, condemn Berisha's proposition as sinful, but also as politically corrupt.
According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a democratic tradition allows
the majority in a society to set moral standards. Scalia has written that to criminalize same-sex
relations is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and warned against the
invention of a brand-new constitutional right by a Court that is impatient of democratic change
(Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). The brand new right he mentioned was legalized same-sex
relationships, including marriage. Significantly, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected religious freedom
as a defense when it outlawed polygamy (Reynolds v. United States, 1878).
Advocates of the rights of same-sex couples to marry, on the other hand, find support for
redefining marriage in legal traditions and democratic principles. The UN International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, for example, states in Article 23 that The right of men and women
of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized. When Spain legalized
same sex marriage, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said that Parliament
was expanding the opportunities for happiness of our neighbors, our colleagues, our friends and
our relatives and building a more decent society" (Spain Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage, 2005).
While marriage has been presumed to be heterosexual in English and American law, that legal
tradition also includes the democratic principles of equal protection and due process, which the
courts have in some cases applied to marriage. For example, in 1967 the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that the Constitution prohibited states from denying marriage licenses to interracial couples
(Loving v. Virginia, 1967).
Marriage and Children
Founding a family remains a special area of concern for people who oppose same sex
marriage. Opponents of same-sex marriage contend that the tradition of heterosexual marriage
has always fundamentally been about procreation. Children need both mothers and fathers,
states Robert H. Knight, who helped draft the federal Defense of Marriage Act in the United States,
and marriage is societys way of obtaining them.
Supporters of same-sex marriage counter that marriage certainly includes the right to
found a family but is not exclusively centered on that right. They point to legitimate
marriages without children. Married couples traditionally find companionship and love, as well as
rights to property. They also obtain rights to adopt children. Therefore, a heterosexual couple
67
who cannot procreate is similarly situated to a same-sex couple with regard to adopting children.
Also, assuming that children need both mothers and fathers, the case for traditional marriage is
not strengthened by high divorce rates of heterosexual couples. Statistical evidence has shown
that as many as 41 percent - and perhaps 50 percent - of heterosexual marriages in the United
States end in divorce (New York Times, 2005).
Supporters say allowing same-sex marriages would enable the establishment of more, not
fewer, families. And children's best interests would be protected. The executive director of
Amnesty International Ireland has argued, Because a same-sex couple is denied access to civil
marriage, any adopted child parented by a same-sex couple will not have the same rights,
entitlements and protections afforded to a child adopted by a heterosexual couple. Similarly, the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held in its decision to legalize same-sex marriage in 2003
that the governments goals in promoting procreation and ensuring good homes for child-rearing
were not promoted by a ban on same-sex marriage (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 2003).
Law and Democratic Change
In democracies that recognize same-sex marriage, society must make significant
adjustments to laws and policies. Opponents of same-sex marriage argue that those adjustments
would place too great a burden on traditional heterosexual marriages.
Opponents also point out that public opinion is still firmly against legalizing same-sex
marriage. In the United States, about 40 percent of citizens support making same-sex marriages
legal (Gallup, May 2009). About 44 percent of European Union citizens feel the same way
(Eurobarometer, 2006). This tension exists also with respect to children. Less than a third of EU
citizens, for example, feel that same-sex couples should have rights to adopt children. In contrast,
a 2003 survey in the United States showed that 60 percent of adoption agencies accept
applications from homosexual men and women, with more and more agencies seeking training in
working with those parents.
Its ironic and interesting, says Harvard University historian Nancy Cott, that same-sex
marriage advocates and conservatives of the family-values school both agree on the value of
marriage and how crucial it is as a social institution (The Future of Marriage, Harvard
Magazine, November-December 2004).
68
2. While marriage certainly includes the right to found a family, it is not the only reason
people get married. People marry for love and companionship, and they marry for
economic reasons. There are also plenty of legitimate marriages without children, as well
as single parent families or blended families with a parent and children from two different
marriages. All of these families are legitimate, as long as there is love and respect in the
home - qualities that both heterosexual and same-sex parents can provide.
3. The basic rights of people who are gay or lesbian should not be subject to a religious
veto. Religious traditions in a democracy deserve respect, but they are not the foundation
of democratic laws. Slavery was once accepted by Christians, Jews, and Muslims, but
today all three traditions condemn slavery. Religious traditions also are not monolithic.
Certain Protestant Christian and Jewish denominations have called for civil recognition of
same-sex marriages, and their clergy have performed weddings for gay and lesbian
couples. Religious practices, like democratic norms, evolve over time.
4. Allowing gays and lesbians to marry would create more, not fewer, families. And
children's best interests would be protected. Our democracys desire to encourage people
to have children in good homes is by recognizing same-sex marriage, not banning it.
69
meaning that they do not have to speak the language of their new country. However, schools
often require students to learn in the dominant language. Therefore, schools are left to figure out
how to educate children who do not speak the dominant language.
Some places, such as the Czech Republic and various U.S. locales, adopt bilingual or dual
language immersion programs for all students so that everyone learns the dominant and
minority languages equally. In other places, schools often approach the teaching of minority
language children with one of two goals in mind:
1. to use the same language of instruction with all students;
2. to allow students to learn school subjects in their own languages.
These goals result in varied curricula, classes, and/or schools for children from different
language groups.
When countries strive to meet the first goal, all students usually attend the same school.
Sometimes, as in the United States, the schools offer special classes that students in minority
languages attend in order to help them learn English better. These special classes are sometimes
taught in the students home language but are also often taught in English. Special classes for
English Language Learners aim to bring students into majority language classrooms as quickly
as possible. Similarly, Roma students attend schools in the Czech Republic where they are taught
in Czech, and schools in Ukraine teach their students in the official state language of Ukrainian,
even in areas with primarily Russian speakers.
In other countries, and even in certain school districts in the United States, minority
elementary students are taught consistently in their own languages. In Azerbaijan, for example,
there are separate schools for teaching Azeri- and non-Azeri-speaking students, and Estonia has
separate schools for Estonian-speaking and Russian-speaking students. These schools strive for
the second goal: to help students learn school subjects in their own languages.
Should Minority Elementary Students Learn in Their Own Languages?
The national or public school serves many purposes in a democracy. At school, students
often receive their first intensive learning about their nations history, economy, peoples, and
relationship to the larger world. School is also where students frequently have their first
encounter with people from traditions different from those of their family or neighborhood.
These interactions - in the classroom, during meals, and on the playground - are critical to how
young people think about themselves and their place in society. Elementary students are
particularly impressionable. Therefore, the adults and peers that they encounter in schools can
shape how they feel about education and the larger nation. If students feel accepted in the
classroom, think that school is important, and believe that their contributions are valued, then
they are more likely to become engaged students and citizens.
Supporters of teaching minority elementary students in their own languages argue that
language should be a tool, not a barrier, for learning. Since a key goal of elementary education is
to teach children the basic skills necessary for academic achievement, supporters say that
71
permitting young students to learn basic information and concepts in their own language will
better prepare them for success in later grades and in the larger society. They also argue that
students do best when they are motivated to excel and see school as a welcoming place. Teaching
young minority students in their own their language helps to make schools a safe place. Students
positive attachments to school motivate them to continue their formal education.
Supporters argue that using state funds to support elementary education in the language
of minority students is a smart investment. Students from many minority groups drop out of
school at higher rates than students from the majority group, often due to feelings of not being
accepted. Students who drop out before completing their education earn less money, get into
more trouble with the law, and become a drain on the resources of the state. Therefore, teaching
these students in their own language is an effective way to keep them in school.
Supporters of this approach also assert that all students are entitled to realize the cultural
rights indispensable for their dignity and personal development. Language is the most basic
vehicle for maintaining cultural identity; teaching elementary students from minority groups in
their own language helps these children to retain their cultural heritage. Far from hurting national
identity, advocates say that creating strong cultural identity among young minority students
contributes to the cultural richness of the nation as a whole.
People who oppose paying for the education of young children from minority groups in
their own language argue that it is not a good use of state funds. All citizens must learn the
national language, and the sooner that students from minority groups learn how to use it, the
better they will be, and the more unified the nation will grow. Learning the national language is a
way to bring the nation closer together.
Opponents of teaching minority students in their own language note that students learn
more in school than just how to read, write, and add. School is where students learn their
national history and culture, and the national language is an essential part of this education. While
a persons particular cultural traditions are very important, the place to learn these traditions is at
home or in a privately funded supplemental school, not at a publicly funded school.
Opponents of teaching elementary minority students in their own language also argue
that teaching them in the dominant language will lead to greater social integration and acceptance.
When young children learn the national language from an early age, all students - from the
majority and minority groups - grow closer as friends and fellow citizens. By contrast, teaching
minority students in their own language not only isolates them from the larger society, it also
sows the seeds for national unrest.
Supporters of teaching elementary minority students in their own language argue that
concerns about minority language groups living in isolation from the larger society are
exaggerated. Students from minority groups have every incentive to learn and use the majority
language, and most develop for themselves the level of fluency they need to survive and succeed.
Teaching these students in their own languages at an early age will not prevent them from
integrating into the larger community as they grow older.
72
Opponents respond that separate is not equal. Teaching elementary students from
minority groups in their own languages will create a dual school system. Because students from
minority groups usually have less power than students in the majority language community,
students in majority language classes will get more resources, greater attention, and better
teachers than students in minority language classes. The result is that students from minority
groups will get a second-class education.
Opponents argue that schooling in minority languages is a well-intentioned but misguided
policy. Learning a language is easier the younger a person is. By contrast, teaching elementary
students from minority groups in their own language delays their proficiency in the national
language. As a result, many do not achieve fluency in the national language and, ultimately,
become marginalized second-class citizens. Ironically, a policy designed to help these students
will ultimately hurt them and their chances of becoming successful, productive citizens.
The freedom to express oneself in different ways - through music, culture, ideas, and
language - is at the heart of democracy. Such expressions by minority groups are often at odds
with the majority. Balancing the needs of both majority and minority communities with di gnity
and respect is an enduring challenge for every democracy.
majority language, and most develop the level of fluency they need to survive and
succeed. Teaching students in their own languages at an early age will not prevent them
from integrating into the larger community as they grow older.
74
In a democracy, the government serves with the consent of the governed. Citizens
consent (agree) to support the government so long as the government protects the rights of
citizens and represents their interests. But citizens often disagree about what the government
should do to protect them and represent their interests.
Democracies allow people to express their views about almost everything. Rarely do
people agree. In democratic societies, where people come from different cultures and may not
speak the same language, there may be even more disagreement about what the government
should do and how much citizens should pay in taxes to support the government. Citizens also
are often suspicious of government and worry about keeping their rights.
How a democracy develops and keeps a sense of national unity and identity is very
important. In part to address these needs, many democracies have some form of mandatory
civilian or military national service.
What Is National Service?
National service generally means citizen participation in a mandatory program sponsored or conducted by the government - to address a national public need. Typically, young
adults are required to serve full-time for a limited period of time, from six months to one or more
years. While serving, citizens either receive basic support from the government - such as housing,
food, clothing, and modest stipend - or the government provides a minimum-level wage. There
are two basic forms of mandatory national service: military and civilian. A country may require
either one or both of these types of service.
Mandatory National Service: The Military
Military service is one of the oldest forms of national service and is common to both
democratic and non-democratic countries. Such democratic countries as Austria, Brazil,
Denmark, Finland, Germany, Israel, Mexico, Norway, Russia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland,
and Turkey require male and occasionally female citizens to participate in military service when
they become 18 years old. The time of service ranges from several months (Switzerland) to three
years (Israel).
National military service often molds a common national identity. In a May 2006 speech,
Russian president Vladimir Putin stressed the role of the military as a symbol of national unity
and national will. He also expressed hope that preparation for military training might address
some of the problems of youth, such as chronic disease, drinking, smoking, and use of drugs.
During World War II, the United States identified itself as a democracy that represented people
from every nation who fought together for freedom; the effort to mobilize such a diverse country
75
led directly to greater social acceptance of Catholics and Jews and to the equal rights movements
of African Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and American Indians.
Many people oppose the use of military service precisely because of its power to shape
the thinking of citizens. They point out that governments can manipulate the confusion between
allegiance to ones country and allegiance to a specific party or leader. Some military personnel
believe that using the armed forces as a citizenship school detracts from the militarys primary
mission of defending the country. Similarly, many people in countries with mandatory military
service have bitter memories of long months doing useless military activities far from home.
They question the citizenship value of enduring the unequal treatment that often accompanies
military life. For these and other reasons, groups such as the Union of the Committees of
Soldiers Mothers of Russia have called for the armed forces to be comprised of volunteer,
professional soldiers. The United States currently has an all-volunteer force.
Most countries that have mandatory military service have options for those who refuse to
serve for moral or religious reasons or who cannot serve for physical reasons. In Norway and
Sweden, persons who object to military service can choose alternate service, such as firefighting.
Estonia offers some flexibility to young men as to when they perform their required military
service: they can choose to do so any time between the ages of 19 and 28.
Mandatory National Service: Civilian Examples
Several nations also call for mandatory civilian national service. Since 1944, Mexico has
required that all university students participate in a service program during their last year of
studies before they receive their degree. Medical students must serve disadvantaged communities
for one year before being licensed. Costa Rica has no military but has a similar requirement for
medical professionals to serve disadvantaged communities before receiving a medical license. In
Nigeria, service is required of all university and polytechnical graduates under 30, unless they
graduate with high honors or enter the military or the police. Egypt requires women high school
graduates, who are exempt from military service, to perform six months of national service in
literacy centers or to do similar work.
Other countries, such as China, Kenya, South Africa, and the United Kingdom, offer
state sponsored programs in which participation is voluntary. In the United States, the
Corporation for National and Community Service sponsors several service options.
Approximately 70,000 Americans 17 and older participate each year in AmeriCorps, a program
designed to meet community needs in education, the environment, public safety, homeland
security, and other areas. AmeriCorps members receive academic scholarships in exchange for a
year of full-time service.
Significantly, these volunteer programs often draw older citizens who have more life
experiences. Through the U.S. Senior Corps, for example, nearly 500,000 Americans age 55 and
older meet community needs as volunteers, foster grandparents, and senior companions. In
January 2002, U.S. President George W. Bush called on all Americans to devote the equivalent of
at least two years of their lives - or 4,000 hours - to service and volunteering. He created the USA
Freedom Corps as a way to promote service and coordinate volunteer opportunities offered
76
through federal programs. However, there is no federal support for those who volunteer for the
USA Freedom Corps.
Mandatory National Service: Supporters and Opponents
Supporters of mandatory national service argue that it can create in citizens a
commitment to country and a responsibility to others. In their view, national service can provide
citizens from all walks of life and from different parts of the country with positive experiences
and opportunities for upward mobility in society. Advocates claim that national service helps
build peoples self esteem, develops work-skills, and teaches them civic responsibility. At the
same time, national service provides a large labor force to work on national problems and to help
out during emergencies. When confronted with the argument that service should not be
compelled, they point out that many types of citizen behavior are compulsory, from paying taxes
to sending children to school. National service, they say, is a reasonable obligation of citizenship.
Opponents of mandatory national service argue that it puts the needs of the state ahead
of the rights of citizens. It violates the important democratic principles of individual freedom and
limited government. Critics oppose using military or civilian national service to promote national
identity precisely because such service can develop obedience to the state rather than
independence among citizens. They also maintain that government-centered national service is
misguided and would be costly and inefficient to run. Expanding national service programs will
only diminish the importance of private charities and the good they can do. They believe that the
best interests of the people are best served by the people, not by the government. Mandatory
service, they say, is not the way to instill civic responsibility.
How democracies develop and maintain a sense of national unity and meet the needs of
their citizens is a critical set of questions for government and citizens. Whether mandatory
national service - civilian or military - is a useful tool in those efforts is a subject for deliberation
by policymakers and citizens.
77
4. National service enables citizens to meet a critical national need by creating a dedicated
labor force to work on worthwhile public projects such as rebuilding parks and roads,
assisting in hospitals and schools, and helping out during natural disasters and times of
national crisis.
5. National service can be a positive, even transformative experience for citizens. Service
offers opportunities to build self-esteem, develop work and leadership skills, and promote
civic responsibility.
78
In Breclav, Czech Republic, a judge sentenced Mrs. Danihels to 15 months in jail and her
husband to 10 months. Their crime? Educational neglect. Their children had missed about 2,000
lessons in the past school year. When their parents were sentenced to jail, the children, aged nine
to twelve, were sent to a center for juvenile delinquents. In Australia, a judge ordered two people
to pay a $60,000 fine. But the people he penalized did not commit the vandalism - and the judge
knew it. Their children were the vandals.
Parents make many decisions about raising their children. In democracies, they expect to
do so without interference from government. But democracies also have laws that allow
governments to protect children from parents who fail to provide basic necessities and
supervision. They also have laws to protect society from the people who commit crimes.
Problems arise when these laws conflict - particularly when parents and the state must decide
when teenagers are responsible for themselves.
Parenting and Parental Liability: An Overview
Being a parent or guardian 1 has many rewards and responsibilities. Parents legal
obligations begin when their children are born or join the family. These obligations end when
children reach the age of majority - the age they are legally considered adults. This age varies, but
in most U.S. states it is 18. In Europe, the age is usually 14.
Parents most fundamental responsibility is to provide basic necessities of life - food,
clothing, shelter, medical care, and education - that children cannot provide for themselves.
Parents who fail to provide these necessities may be charged with child neglect. Parents also have
the responsibility to supervise their children. Under the legal theory of parens patriae, the
government serves as the ultimate parent of a child. Children who are neglected or who are not
properly supervised by their parents may be placed under the authority of the court. Judges
usually try to keep the family together by ordering these children and their parents to receive
counseling, to take special classes, or to receive other support. In severe cases, however, a judge
may place children in foster care to protect them or in a juvenile detention facility for
supervision.
Community members can also hold parents accountable for the actions of their children.
Tort law (also known as civil law) allows victims to sue a person who caused harm to them, to
their property, or to their reputation. In a lawsuit, the victim usually has to prove that a specific
person is responsible (liable) for the specific injuries or damage. However, even people who are
1
Guardians are people who have the legal power and obligation to take care of another person who is not
capable of total independence, usually due to his or her age. For the purposes of this reading, the term
parent will also mean guardian, as the two usually have the same rights and responsibilities toward
children in their care.
79
not directly responsible for the injury may be liable to pay. In certain circumstances, the law
assumes that the offense would not have happened if a parent had reasonably supervised the
child.
Around the world, parents can be held liable for a variety of offenses committed by their
children. In the Russian Federation, parents can face a penalty of 500 to 1000 roubles if they fail
to prevent the presence of their children in places where their presence is prohibited. In
Romania, if children make false bomb threats or fake calls to emergency numbers, parents may
be fined. In the United States, parents can face expensive lawsuits if their children illegally
download copyrighted materials or if they cause an accident in the family car. Parents can be
charged with failing to take sufficient measures to prevent underage drinking in their homes.
And parents who live in publicly funded housing may be forced out of their homes if their
children engage in criminal drug activity on or near the property - even if the parents did not
know the children were using or selling drugs.
Internationally, the most common offense for which parents can be held liable is property
damage. Under the laws of the Russian Federation and the European Civil Code, parents are
liable for the property damage caused by their children aged 6 to 14, unless the parents can prove
they provided sufficient supervision. Between the ages of 14 and 18, the child is held fully
responsible. In Estonia, parents whose children aged 15-18 willfully damage property are held
liable whether they provided adequate supervision or not. In the United States, 33 states allow
parents to be sued for property damage. Some states only require parents to pay if their children
are of a certain age. For example, parents in Oregon will only be responsible if the offending
child is less than 15 years old. Some states cap the amount that can be collected from parents,
typically around $2,500 per incident. In California, judges can hold parents liable for up to
$25,000 per incident. Other states, like Hawaii, have no limit at all.
Truancy: A Case Study in Parental Liability
According to the United Nations Convention on the Child and the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, children have a right to an education. In addition, education should be free up
to a certain age, and school attendance should be compulsory (required by law.) If children miss
school without a valid reason, they are considered truant. In Europe, typical compulsory
education laws require children between the ages of 6 and 16 to go to school. In the United
States, most states require children between 7 and 16 to attend school.
Democratic countries require education out of concern for children and to protect
society. Young people who do not attend school are likely to face a lifetime of difficulties.
According to Romanian psychologist Diana Dinc, a lack of education diminishes a persons
chances to have a job and increases the risk of extreme poverty. The lack of access to
education can also decrease the chances of future generations success. Truancy hurts
communities, too. Police officers know that in communities where truancy is high, so is the
daytime crime rate. Adults who were truants as juveniles tend to rely more heavily on welfare and
have an increased likelihood of going to jail, at a great cost to society. Local schools lose when
students skip because in places like Macedonia and Indiana, the government bases its financial
support to schools on daily attendance figures.
80
Opponents say many parents lack effective parenting skills, so the biggest priority should
be helping parents parent well. As one psychologist and school safety expert put it, with parental
liability laws, you are telling people you are going to punish them for a job they want to do but
dont know how do.
Opponents also think government should prevent juvenile crime and truancy by
addressing the reasons kids skip school or commit crimes. For example, if teachers were better
trained and had better materials, perhaps children would value school more. If schools were
safer, children who fear bullying and crime at school might attend. Some young people say they
vandalize property because they are bored. Opponents of parental liability would agree with the
efforts of a power company in Moscow that grew tired of fighting with kids who vandalized its
towers and decided to invite graffiti artists to make them more beautiful.
Supporters of parental liability acknowledge that the government in a democracy cannot
take the place of parents. However, democratic government is responsible for enforcing the laws
and protecting everyone in society. Parental liability laws can provide the right incentives for
good parenting and appropriate penalties for bad parenting. This solution strikes the right
balance between family privacy and the greater good of the community.
Opponents say that parental liability laws disproportionately penalize people who are
poor. Even when school is free, some parents cannot afford materials, appropriate clothing,
transportation, and other associated costs. In many economically depressed communities,
children miss school to work or to watch younger children while their parents work. According
to criminologist H. Wilson, Lax parenting is often the result of chronic stress, situations arising
from frequent or prolonged spells of unemploymentand an often permanent condition of
poverty. In this economy, as more parents are forced to work long hours or hold two or more
jobs to earn enough money to cover basic family needs, it is unjust for governments to cut
federal spending on welfare programs and then prosecute parents for being unavailable to
supervise their children. Programs to increase parents job skills and earning power would
reduce truancy and juvenile crime more than punishing parents.
Conclusion
The question of whether parents should be held liable for their childrens actions is also a
question of the proper role of government. As University of Connecticut law and public policy
professor Steven Wisensale put it, The problem we have in this country is were constantly
wrestling with the dilemma of preserving the privacy of what goes on in the family, versus what is
for the good of the greater community.
parents have seen reductions in the number of truants. Drops in truancy also result in
drops in juvenile crime. As with most problems in life, a mixture of incentives and
penalties has the best chance of reducing negative behaviors.
2. Victims of crimes have a right to be compensated for their injuries or damage to their
property. However, most minors do not have any money. If victims of vandalism and
graffiti can sue parents for the full costs of repairing or replacing their property, then
parents will supervise their teenagers more carefully.
3. Some children are delinquent because their parents are delinquent in their parenting.
Significant penalties for parents of delinquent teenagers can help keep these parents from
shirking their responsibilities. Parents are responsible for their children, and parents must
be held accountable for their obligations.
4. The government in a democracy cannot take the place of parents. However, democratic
government is responsible for enforcing the laws and protecting everyone in society.
Parental liability laws can provide the right incentives for good parenting and appropriate
penalties for bad parenting. This solution strikes the right balance between family privacy
and the greater good of the community.
watch younger children while their parents work. Lax parenting often results from
prolonged unemployment and poverty. The government cannot justly prosecute parents
for failing to supervise their children when those parents have to work two or three jobs
to provide for their families. Programs to increase parents job skills and earning power
would reduce truancy and juvenile crime more than punishing parents.
84
In November 2004, the sitting Prime Minister of Ukraine was declared the victor in
elections widely considered in the country and by international observers as fraudulent. In
protest, thousands of demonstrators assembled without government permission in Independence
Square in the frozen, snow-covered capital city of Kiev. They refused to go home until new
elections were called. They stayed, sang songs, and nonviolently assembled to protest the
electoral process. After days of protest, the Supreme Court annulled the November results and
ordered another election. The Orange Revolution, named after the color adopted by the
protesters, led to a fairer election in December 2004; this time, the opposition candidate won.
When citizens disagree with their government, one of the most powerful ways to express
that dissent is to demonstrate publicly with other citizens. Sometimes - in Ukraine in 2004,
Romania in 1991, Azerbaijan in 1988, and the Philippines in 1986 - these demonstrations have
not been stopped, and they have led directly to a change of government. At other times, such as
in Tiananmen Square in 1991 and Chicago in 1968, governments have determined such
demonstrations were a threat to public safety and suppressed them by police and military forces.
Distinguishing between the rights of citizens to assemble and the responsibility of
government to maintain safety is one of the most troublesome questions of free expression in
any society. It is a particularly difficult question in a democracy, where government must listen
and respond to the voices of its citizens.
An Ancient and Fundamental Freedom
The gathering of people to discuss problems and voice their disapproval of the authorities
is perhaps as old as government itself. Using such assemblies to protest government actions also
has a long legal history, and these gatherings are crucial to other freedoms, such as speech and
belief. For example, the American labor movement, the modern Civil Rights movement, and the
Pro-Life movement have all used public assembly to promote their cause.
Public demonstrations are a uniquely dynamic form of expression. They enable face-toface contact between speaker and audience, promote solidarity and mutual support among
demonstrators, and let demonstrators show their dedication and support to outsiders. Because
demonstrations do not require the money necessary for television shows, media campaigns, or
newspaper advertising, they are favored by those with little or no economic or political power.
Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 by the General
Assembly of the United Nations, includes the protection that everyone has the right to freedom
of peaceful assembly and association. In the United States, the First Amendment to the
Constitution states that Congress shall make no lawprohibiting the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. To varying
degrees, this right has been exercised by citizens and honored by governments around the world.
85
Putin, reflected on recent demonstrations: The demonstrations on the streets were the normal
reaction of angry people . . . Of course, it is better for discussions on necessary measures to take
place through socially effective procedures rather than on the streets, and for this to happen we
need to have working mechanisms for communication between the public and the authorities.
Limits on Public Demonstrations: Supporters and Opponents
Should democratic governments have the power to prohibit unauthorized public
demonstrations?
People who support prohibitions on unauthorized demonstrations say that getting a
permit from the government strikes a reasonable balance between order and liberty. Requiring a
permit does not mean that the government has arbitrary power to allow or prohibit a
demonstration. Rather, it enables government to fulfill its duty to uphold the law impartially:
everyone follows the same rules.
Supporters also argue that a law, in order to be effective, must be able to work. If the
police cannot move or regulate people from a public place, then society is at risk. Because crowds
are unstable, a peaceful demonstration can turn quickly into a violent mob. Requiring
authorization creates a workable framework in which both government and demonstrators can
make decisions.
Opponents of requiring pre-authorization argue that people gathered peacefully to discuss
or protest an issue do not need permission from the very government against which they may
have a grievance. Any law that requires a license to demonstrate in public places represents an
unfair limit on a fundamental liberty of a democratic society. The decision to grant or deny a
permit is inherently political: such a fundamental freedom should not be left in the hands of a
clerk.
Opponents also argue that, while newspapers and television are the media of the wealthy
and the powerful, public demonstrations are the media of the poor, the radical, and the marginal.
Such people can hardly expect to receive the same authorizations as those who support the
established order. In order to make their voices heard, they need to be able to picket, parade, and
demonstrate in public places when and where necessary. The use of public places for these
purposes, as long as peace and order are maintained, cannot be denied.
Supporters of government power to stop unauthorized public demonstrations counter by
saying that public space does not mean lawless space. Just as every city rightfully exercises control
over traffic, so too a demonstration permit is a reasonable way for the government to maintain
order. The privilege of some citizens to assemble publicly to share their views must be regulated
in the interest of all citizens because this is a relative, not absolute, privilege.
Supporters also note that in the age of the instant communication, rarely will events
happen so quickly that government cannot respond in time. A permit can be reviewed and
approved fast enough to meet the legitimate free expression needs of citizens. Opponents agree
that, as in Kiev in 2004, the timing of demonstrations has never been more important. They fear
87
that government authorization procedures, like those in Azerbaijan, create delays that effectively
become government denials for popular assemblies.
In short, how governments regulate public demonstrations will remain controversial
wherever democracies thrive.
88
89
The amount of trash that human societies create is alarming. So much of our waste has
ended up in the ocean that a giant garbage patch - over twice the size of Texas or Ukraine - exists
1,000 miles from the U.S. West Coast (Weiss, 2006). The patch does not disappear because so
much of our trash contains non-biodegradable plastics. Scientists estimate that the polyethylene
used to make the 60,000 plastic bags that the U.S. uses every 5 seconds (see Figure 1) takes at
least 500 years to dissolve. Each year, our plastic waste kills an estimated 1 million seabirds and
100,000 sea turtles, seals, whales, and other marine mammals (Weiss, 2006).
Our garbage also includes hazardous chemical compounds - like lead and mercury - that
can pollute air, soil, and groundwater. This contamination ultimately harms plants and animals,
including human beings. Some governments are trying to reduce the waste created by human
activities. Reusing materials when manufacturing products is one way to do so.
Extending Manufacturer Responsibility for Recycling
Certain manufacturers have participated in recycling for a long time. In 1947, for
example, the U.S. beverage industry put 100% of soft drinks in glass bottles. Consumers paid a
deposit for these bottles and received a refund upon returning them to the store. Bottling plants
then washed, refilled, and resold those bottles. However, the widespread availability of nonreusable aluminum cans and plastic bottles in the 1970s transformed the industry. Consumers
liked not having to return their beverage containers to the site of purchase, and distributors saved
money by not having to pick up empty bottles. Additionally, bottlers no longer had to wash and
inspect returned bottles. Thus the discarding of beverage containers became common (Institute
for Local Self-Reliance, 2002).
The explosion of can and bottle litter concerned environmentalists who saw more and
more non-biodegradable beverage containers ending up in landfills or along waterways and roads.
They also worried about the pollutants released into the environment during the production of
metal cans and plastic bottles. Governments, too, began worrying about the wastefulness of
beverage manufacturing. As a result, when an aluminum manufacturer can built a plant in
Sweden during the 1980s, the Swedish government threatened to ban the use of aluminum
beverage containers unless the industry managed to reclaim 75 percent of its products. The
industry met and surpassed this goal by using a deposit/refund system that resembled the original
refillable bottle model described above (Franklin, 1997).
Swedens policy shows how governments can hold manufacturers accountable for the
waste they create, not only during the production process - which includes the mining of bauxite
(the rock from which aluminum comes) - but also after the product is thrown away. The goal of
such policies is to give manufacturers an incentive to think about the well-being of the
environment when they design and select materials for their products. The central idea is that
manufacturers will make less waste and pollution if they have to pay for these by-products.
90
Instead, they allow manufacturers to determine the best way to meet WEEEs requirements. In
Lithuania, for example, so long as manufacturers collect and recycle a certain amount of e-waste
(the government determines this number annually), they follow the law (Sander et al., 2007).
In 2003, the EU passed another law called the Reduction of the Use of Certain
Hazardous Substances (RoHS). This law sets limits on the amount of toxic materials that can be
used in the making of new electronic equipment. RoHS supporters argue that eliminating
materials like lead, mercury, and cadmium from the manufacturing process is better for the
environment. It also makes the future recycling of products safer and, therefore, more likely.
What is more, RoHS promises to reduce e-waste on a global scale. If Chinese, Japanese, and U.S.
high-tech companies want to continue selling their products to European countries, they too
must comply with RoHS. Because it is not practical or profitable for these manufacturers to make
some electronics that meet RoHS requirements and others that do not, EU design requirements
will become global requirements (Isaacs in Grossman, 2006).
In the U.S., various cities and states have begun implementing recycling laws similar to
those in Europe, largely because no federal policy exists. Those supporting a national recycling
policy argue that local laws often conflict with each other, making it difficult for manufacturers to
comply with all of them. A manufacturer in one state, for example, may have an advance
recovery fee placed on its products, whereas in another state, the same manufacturer may have to
take back its products and pay for recycling (Stephenson in Chabrow, 2005). Not having a
standardized approach to recycling also means the U.S. has a hard time monitoring what happens
to e-waste after it is collected.
Indeed, the U.S. Government Accountability Offices estimates that 50-80% of the
devices collected for recycling in the U.S. end up in Asia or Africa (Hileman, 2006). Once there,
e-waste may be scattered along rivers and roads or openly burned in large piles, as it is in Nigeria.
Given that the inappropriate disposal or taking apart of electronic waste is dangerous to workers
and the environment, this unmonitored exporting of electronic waste is unacceptable.
The U.S. is not alone in sending e-waste to China, India, Pakistan, Senegal, Kenya, and
Tanzania. Although it is illegal for European companies to ship unusable electronic devices to
developing countries, governmental authorities often do not test products to see if they can be
recycled before they are shipped off. Some people argue that the only practical solution to this
problem is to require manufacturers to reduce or eliminate toxic materials from electronic
products, as RoHS aims to do.
Regardless of whether or not people support or oppose laws requiring manufacturers to
take responsibility for the waste they create, there is an almost universal belief among producers,
government officials, consumers, and NGOs non-governmental organizations that e-waste
should not end up in landfills or on ships bound for Asia or Africa (Hileman, 2006).
92
Winston was in Victory Square before the appointed time. He saw the girl at the base of the monument,
reading or pretending to read a poster which ran spirally up the column. It was not safe to go near her
until more people had accumulated. There were telescreens all around the pediment. - George Orwell in
his novel 1984
Several hundred officers were assigned to viewing the (CCTV) film. At about 8 pm on Monday, an
officer found just what Clarke was looking for: images of four young men carrying rucksacks. Hussains
face was clearly identifiable. - London Times, describing CCTV and the identification of the 2005
London subway bombers
better street lighting was far more effective at deterring crime and much less expensive (NACRO,
2002). Nevertheless, both the police and the public are very supportive of them: once in place,
the cameras are rarely removed. Many are installed with public input, but others are not.
The Technology of Video Surveillance
Video surveillance surpasses human observation in several ways. Night-vision, zooming,
and automatic tracking capacities, for example, allow such systems to see things even trained
people cannot. With ten cameras and a few monitors in a control room, public authorities can
effectively monitor, track, identify, and record events and places better than many more human
observers in the field.
Technology also allows governments to limit what information is gathered and accessed.
For example, the Constitution Project in Washington explains that digital masking can be used
to automatically blur the faces of persons who are recorded but unconnected to the surveillance.
Stored data also can be encrypted with electronic keys to protect against unauthorized access.
Data can also be given a digital watermark to authenticate records and verify who, where, and
when files are accessed (Guidelines for Public Video Surveillance, 2007).
Privacy, Anonymity, and Democracy
An important democratic principle is that government is limited by law. It exists to serve
the people, not the other way around. Traditionally, persons in a democracy can move, think,
meet, or otherwise exercise their autonomy without government supervision. In the words of
American jurist Louis Brandeis, a person in a democratic state has the right to be let alone
(Olmstead v. United States, 1928). This is the essence of the right to privacy.
Privacy includes the right to make decisions for your own body and to keep your medical
information from other people. It is the right to keep others out of your property and to keep
information such as what clothes you buy or what books you read from being shared. A related
right is anonymity - that is, the expectation that your activities will not be monitored by the
government. The European Court of Human Rights has recognized that even public interactions
with others may be considered part of private life (Venice Commission, 2007).
Under Communist rule, surveillance by state security organizations regularly reminded
people of the power of the Communist Party and the state. People who questioned or challenged
the government were denied work, imprisoned, exiled, and even executed based on surveillance
information. In the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) conducted
surveillance on Martin Luther King, Jr., and other leaders of the Civil Rights Movement. The
U.S. government also monitored the 1960s peace movement, the 1980s anti-nuclear movement,
and the 2002-3 anti-Iraq War demonstrations. It used surveillance data to harass, intimidate, and
embarrass persons who opposed the government and its policies.
Individual democracies have recognized many forms of a right to privacy. The
Macedonian constitution provides that Each citizen is guaranteed the respect and protection of
the privacy of his/her personal and family life and his/her dignity and reputation (Article 25).
95
Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Romania, Russia, and Ukraine have similar constitutional protections.
Although U.S. Constitution does not refer explicitly to privacy as a right, the U.S. Supreme Court
has recognized a right to privacy based on the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth
Amendments (Slobogin, 2002). In the European Union and the United States, police must have a
warrant - permission from a court - for certain searches.
Privacy is also protected under international treaties. One such treaty is the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary
or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on
his honour and reputation and that everyone has the right to the protection of the law against
such interference or attacks (Article 17).
Like most rights, privacy has limits. Countries work to balance individual privacy
protections against societys need for safety and security. If a person visits the doctor and tests
positive for Swine flu, for example, this information is reported to the government to protect
public health. Governments scan airline passengers and search their baggage to protect flight
safety. In times of war, police are often given greater power to watch and question suspicious
persons.
Video Surveillance in Public Places: Chicagos Operation Disruption
In response to community concerns, the Chicago Police Department introduced
Operation Disruption in 2003. At that time, most violent crime in Chicago was related to
open-air drug markets. Operation Disruption installed highly visible cameras, topped with a
flashing blue light, on designated street corners. The purpose of the program was to show drug
dealers that they were being watched, deter drug trafficking, and reduce drug-related violence.
Operation Disruption seemed to have strong initial success, and both city council members and
community groups have requested cameras for their neighborhoods. In Denver, Colorado, a
similar project - HALO - is equally popular among community groups.
Today the Chicago Police Department has thousands of surveillance camera pods in
schools, on buses, in parks, and in other public spaces. All are explicitly marked. Another video
system, called Virtual Shield, is designed for public emergencies and coordinated by the citys
Office of Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC).
The Chicago Police Department keeps surveillance records for a maximum of fifteen days
before the data is written over. Data is encrypted and stored centrally at police headquarters. It is
protected by a log-on process and firewalls. All user activity is monitored internally and audited
by the FBI. In order to review video data, an officer must follow an internal approval procedure;
no judge or neutral reviewer is involved. Police who violate procedures or use the system
incorrectly are subject to internal disciplinary procedures.
Both Operation Disruption and Virtual Shield are coordinated systems; authorized
personnel can access information on either system. While police data is open to the OEMC
system, some OEMC data is restricted. Disputes about access are resolved between the
96
departments. National security agencies can also request this information. There is no mechanism
to resolve disagreements about access.
Balancing Security and Privacy
One proposal for balancing personal privacy with public safety is to require the police to
get permission from a judge to look at video records. Supporters say video surveillance raises an
old problem in democratic government: Who will watch the watchers? Asking a judge for access
to video records, they say, is no different from asking for a search warrant to look for evidence.
Supporters say that the freedom to talk and walk and meet without the government
watching them is fundamental to democratic society. People modify their behavior in public
when they know the police are watching. Requiring permission from a judge helps ensure that
whatever the police see on CCTV will be remembered only if it relates to crime.
Without a judge or another neutral person deciding what the police can and cannot do
with surveillance data, some people fear government officials will abuse such information. Asking
permission from a judge makes it harder for police to develop profiles on ordinary citizens. If the
police have a good reason, then the judge will permit access.
Supporters also argue that ordinary citizens will not know if the police have abused their
surveillance powers. Nor can they be certain that offending officers will be punished. As a result,
punishing the police or compensating victims becomes very hard. Thus supporters argue that
prevention is the best way to address the possibility of surveillance abuse by the government.
Opponents of the requirement for judicial approval counter that democratic governments
exist to protect their citizens, not just the rights of their citizens. Too much protection for one
persons privacy can result in the destruction of democratic society itself.
Opponents also claim that judges lack the expertise to recognize when police have a valid
need to review video surveillance records. This extra step makes the difficult work of fighting
crime even harder. They add that judicial systems already struggle with few resources and huge
case loads. This extra responsibility will mean that judges will have to do more with less.
Good police work depends on timely action. If police must ask a judge for permission to
review video surveillance records, they will lose valuable time. The London subway bombings
investigation shows the value of quick CCTV data sharing. Unnecessary walls between police and
national security agencies have little value, present much risk, and benefit only criminals.
Supporters of judicial review agree that the risks to national security are enormous, but so are the
risks to democracy. The easy sharing of surveillance data between police and national security
personnel can quickly result in dossiers on citizens who are guilty only of legitimate political
dissent. Judicial permission is necessary to protect the democratic rights of citizens.
In addition, supporters note that surveillance most often deters crime. Rarely do police
see a crime about to occur on video and rush to prevent it. Video surveillance records help police
97
check for evidence about a crime that has already been committed - not a crime happening in real
time. Asking permission from a judge to view these tapes is a reasonable safeguard.
Ultimately, opponents of judicial review say that concerns about police abuse of video
surveillance records are unfounded. Police department policies are sufficient to prevent most
abuse. Police departments also have procedures in place - from reassignment to dismissal for
the few officers who fail to follow the law. Asking a judge to review each request is unnecessary.
As long as video surveillance remains, so will questions about balancing privacy and
security in 21st century democracies.
98
99
In 1999, two teenage students shot and killed twelve other students and a teacher at Columbine High
School in the United States. The two killers seem to have practiced their attack by using a modified
version of the video game Doom.
What are the causes of violence? There is no easy answer, and probably no single cause.
Some experts argue that there are biological reasons. They believe that some people have genes
or a chemical make-up that make them more likely to be violent. Others blame such social
problems as poverty, discrimination, lack of hope, the breakdown of family values, childhood
abuse, or drug and alcohol addictions. Finally, some point to cultural factors, such as the amount
of violence portrayed in the media.
Violence on Television: An International Concern
By the seventh grade, the average American child will have witnessed 8,000 murders and
100,000 acts of violence on television. Some people say that so much violence on television
makes American society more violent. They think that watching a lot of violence makes people
more likely to act violently. In 1972, the U.S. Surgeon General, the highest medical officer in the
American government, said that televised violence does have (a negative) effect on certain
members of our society. Numerous scientific studies since then have supported the surgeon
generals position.
Concern over televised violence is not restricted to the United States. As early as 1994, at
a meeting convened by The Carter Center to discuss radio and television policy, representatives
from Russia, the Czech Republic, and other new democracies recommended that Images of
violence should be transmitted with the utmost discretion. Broadcasters should voluntarily agree to
avoid broadcasting violent images while children are likely to be in the audience. In Lithuania,
broadcasters voluntarily rate programs according to the ages for which they are appropriate.
Because these restrictions are voluntary, however, some groups in Lithuania, including teachers
associations, support stronger government regulation.
Many social scientists agree that televised violence can contribute to antisocial behavior in
children. After a five-year study, the American Psychological Association reported in 1992 that
TV violence can cause aggressive behavior and can cultivate values favoring the use of
aggression to resolve conflicts. In other words, watching violent TV can make viewers violent.
Defenders of television believe that the problem is more complicated. After all, not
everyone who watches a murder drama goes out and commits murder the next day. Millions of
people view violence on television, but only a few commit acts of violence. Violence in
entertainment, they claim, is being held responsible for a broader problem in society. Violence on
TV reflects, but does not cause, the level of violence in American society. Some research
100
supports this position. While a 1999 study conducted at Case Western Reserve University and
Kent State University found disturbingly high levels of violence among 2,000 third- to eighthgrade students in the United States, the researchers found only a modest link between this
violence and watching televised violence. Students most at risk for becoming violent were those
who had witnessed or were victims of real-life violence at home, in the community, or at school.
Video Game Violence
Violent video games raise similar concerns. Computerized video games were first
introduced to the public in the 1970s. Today, many popular video games feature high levels of
realistic violence. How do children respond to video games? In a 2001 study, psychologists Craig
Anderson and Brad Bushman reviewed 35 different studies on violent video games. Some of the
statistics they cited include these facts:
Seventy-nine percent of American youth play computer or video games regularly. On
average, young people ages 7 to 17 play these games eight hours each week.
Violent games account for some 80 percent of video game industry revenues, while
sports and other video game formats account for only 20 percent of the market. In a
sample of 33 popular games by two major game makers, 80 percent had violent content.
Children seem to favor violent games. In one study of seventh- and eighth-grade
students, percent of the preferred games were violent, only 2 percent were educational.
Although there are less research data on the effects of video game violence than on the
effects of televised violence, many researchers have concluded that violent video games have
negative effects on young players. In their 2001 analysis, Anderson and Bushman also concluded
that there was a consistent pattern of results in five areas. Exposure to violent video games :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
While many experts agree with these conclusions, some disagree. In 2001,
communications researcher John Sherry also conducted a review of the research and concluded
that the overall effect of these games on aggressiveness does not appear great. He did,
however, agree that newer, more violent games do show a greater effect.
Current Policies
Currently, the video game industry regulates itself. Most North American video game
manufacturers use the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) system. In this system,
reviewers rate the content of each game in terms of violence, crude language, sex, and substance
abuse. In Europe, the Pan European Games Information (PEGI) system uses age-based ratings.
Games reviewed by ESRB or PEGI receive a rating symbol on the game box: those with violent
or sexual content may receive the ESRB ratings AO (Adults Only - 18 and over) or PEGI
101
rating 18+ (suitable only for people 18 and older). The back of the box displays symbols that
describe games as showing violence, sex, substance abuse, and other content. Manufacturers are
encouraged - but not required - to submit games for review; Nintendo and Sega, for example,
have their own procedures.
Video game critics say that current policies are not adequate. They cite a 2003 U.S.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report that found that 78 percent of children ages 13 to 16
could buy video games with M-Mature (ages 17 and older) ratings. They also argue that many
parents do not know what kinds of video games their children buy and play. They point to the
case of the Columbine High School killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. According to the
Simon Wiesenthal Center, which studies Internet hate groups, Harris and Klebold had modified
the violent video game Doom by giving the players unlimited ammunition and the victims no way
to fight back. It seems likely that the two killers practiced their attacks using the game. It i s also
unlikely that their parents even knew what they were doing.
Even before the FTC report was issued, the Interactive Digital Software Association, a
trade group for the video game industry, developed video game marketing standards and
practices that also included methods of enforcement. The new system posts warning signs, trains
sales staff, and requires proof of age for anyone who wants to rent or buy violent videos.
Current Debates
Some people have called for even stronger restrictions on video games. Critics of
voluntary ratings claim that the system is not working. They claim that stores do not enforce
voluntary ratings and parents are unaware of them. They also do not trust the $10 billion a year
video game industry to police itself when there is so much money to be made selling to young
people.
Some governments agree with stronger restrictions. In 2005, the American state of Illinois
passed the Violent Video Games Law, which made it a crime for retail stores to sell or rent
violent or sexual video games to minors. Stores must place parental warnings on video game
labels and post signs explaining the existing industry ratings. Violators of the law will be fined
$1,000 for the first violation and $5,000 or up to a year in prison for each additional violation.
Opponents of these restrictions claim that such punishments are not necessary. They
argue that the video game industry is taking appropriate steps to protect younger players and that
there is still no scientific certainty that violent video games actually hurt young people. Without
this kind of evidence, opponents argue that punishments like those for selling cigarettes or
tobacco to young people are not justified. Finally, some argue that criminal penalties would
violate democratic principles of free expression. In the United States, the Supreme Court has
upheld criminal penalties for distributing cigarettes, alcohol, and pornographic materials to
minors, but lower federal courts have already struck down video game laws.
No decision has been reached regarding what to do about violent video games and their
effects on children. Such debate will arise whenever a democracy must balance the right to free
expression with its duty to protect the vulnerable members of society from harm.
102
103
Voting is key to civic participation in a democratic society. Elections are a vital way for
people to express their views and promote change. Elections also are seen as affirming a
countrys commitment to democracy. For a nation to be a democracy, every eligible adult citizen
should have the right to vote. Governments that do not offer their citizens a choice to vote for
more than one candidate are not generally viewed as real democracies. Evidence indicates that
people around the world place great value on their right to vote.
In democracies where open elections are relatively new, voter turnout is usually very high.
But in other democracies, many adults choose not to vote. For example, in the 2004 American
national elections, fewer than 60 percent of eligible voters cast ballots. Things are not much
better in other democracies. When the first open elections were held in Lithuania in 1993, more
than 78 percent of registered voters participated, compared with about 50 percent in the 2004
elections. In the 2006 election in the Czech Republic, about 65 percent of eligible voters cast
ballots, a substantial drop from the 1992 election, when 85 percent of people voted. Estonia has
seen participation fall from 78 percent in 1990 to 58 percent in 2003.
Worries about Low Voter Participation in Elections
Many experts and ordinary people in democratic countries are concerned about low voter
participation in elections. Democratic societies have tried numerous ways to increase voter
turnout. Laws and practices that seem to increase voting include:
Advertising or advocating voting;
mailing sample ballots and polling information in advance;
early voting before election day at convenient locations;
electronic systems or mail-in ballots, where citizens can vote from home;
election day registration;
longer hours at polling places on election day.
Because of the importance attached to voting, some people who are concerned about low
turnout have proposed requiring people to vote. This practice is called compulsory voting.
Civic Participation and Compulsory Voting
In several democratic countries - including Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Italy, and
Mexico - citizens are required to vote in national elections. In these countries, voting is seen not
only as a right but also as a civic responsibility. Compulsory voting also has a history in the
United States. Simon Jackman of Stanford University notes that North Dakota (1898) and
Massachusetts (1918) amended their constitutions to allow compulsory voting, but their
legislatures never passed laws to make voting compulsory.
104
In countries with compulsory voting laws, each citizen must register and show up at the
polls to vote. They are not required to vote for any particular candidate. Sometimes people
deliberately spoil their ballots to show their disapproval of the listed candidates or just vote
randomly for any candidate. Those who choose not to vote and do not have a valid reason must
pay a small fine.
According to the Australian Legal Information Institute, Australians who do not vote,
lack a valid and sufficient reason for not voting, and refuse to pay the fine may be jailed,
although this punishment is rare. In other countries with compulsory voting, the penalties for
persons who choose not to vote are often not enforced.
Generally, countries that have compulsory voting also have strong nationally centralized
voting systems. In Peru, for example, the voter registration system is coordinated by an official
organization that maintains the national voting database. People are given a national voter
identification card - with a photograph and thumbprint - when they reach voting age.
Registration is transferred whenever a person moves.
Compulsory Voting: Advocates and Opponents
Advocates for compulsory voting make several arguments for why the practice should be
adopted by democratic societies. First, compulsory voting laws do increase voter turnout. Political
scientists Louis Massicotte, Andre Blais, and Antoine Yoshinaka, who study countries that
mandate voting, estimate that compulsory voting increases voter turnout by 8 to 15 percent. The
increase is most often seen among people who normally do not vote, particularly the poor and
less educated. As Simon Jackman notes, to the extent that compulsory voting increases turnout,
compulsory voting also removes socioeconomic differences in electoral participation. In other
words, say advocates, the higher the rate of voter participation in democratic elections, the more
those elections can be said to represent legitimately the will of the people.
Supporters also see important civic outcomes in compulsory voting. In their view, voting
is a necessary part of a citizens work. While they acknowledge that this responsibility might
compel people to vote against their will, as American legal commentator John Dean notes, so is
the compulsion to drive only on the right side of the road. Requiring citizens to vote is no more
restrictive than requiring them to register for the draft. And it is far less restrictive than requiring
us, for example, to attend school; to serve on juries, possibly for weeks or months at a time; to
pay taxes; or to serve in the military when drafted. Voting is the least a citizen can do for his or
her country. Furthermore, advocates claim an element of civic education through voting: if
people know they must vote, they will pay closer attention to the issues an 65 d go to the polls
more informed. Compulsory voting laws will reinforce the idea that voting is a vital part of
democratic citizenship.
Opponents of compulsory voting argue that, at least in the United States, citizens do not
want compulsory voting, a fact supported by a 2004 survey conducted by ABC News. In fact,
opponents argue that low voter turnout may well be a sign of overall voter satisfaction, not
disappointment, with the current system.
105
106
5. If people know they will be fined for not voting, they will pay closer attention to the
issues and stances of candidates and go to the polls informed.
6. Political parties can focus more on educating people about their ideas and candidates
instead of trying to convince them to vote.
107
At the heart of democracy is the idea that citizens are equal 1 before the law. In elections,
every citizen gets only one vote. When citizens are charged with crimes or believe their rights
have been violated, they expect equal treatment in the courts whether they are rich or poor,
religious or atheist, politicians or political activists.
Every democratic society must strive to grant equal protection to its citizens. Yet one
significant community of citizens is the focus of many laws but has no formal way to shape those
laws: youth. Children and adolescents are a vital part of every nation. They are subject to societ ys
rules, but they are treated differently under the law precisely because of their age. They cannot
vote, nor do they have many of the privileges and responsibilities of older citizens. Instead, laws
are passed to help and protect them or to protect the larger society. One of these laws is the
youth curfew.
Youth Curfews: Protection or Punishment?
Youth curfew laws make it illegal for young people, usually under age 16 or 17, to be on
the streets during certain times, typically from 11:00 p.m. to 4:00 a.m. These laws are part of a
larger group of status offenses. A status offense is something that is illegal when a young
person does it but legal when done by an adult. Depending on the country, other examples can
be smoking or drinking in public, running away from home, or not being in school during a
normal school day.
The United States is the current leader in legislating and enforcing curfew laws. These
laws are usually passed and enforced by state or local governments. During the 1990s, thousands
of American cities and towns, including nearly three-fourths of all cities with more than 100,000
inhabitants, enacted youth curfew laws. These laws were part of a response to the increase in
juvenile crime that occurred in the United States between 1988 and 1992. During those four
years, juvenile homicide increased 55 percent. Forcible rape increased 27 percent, and aggravated
assault jumped 80 percent. Young people under 16 were responsible for 62 percent of violent
juvenile offenses, but statistics also showed that teenagers were the most frequent targets of
juvenile violence. Curfew laws enacted in the 1990s were aimed at reducing juvenile crime and
preventing youth victimization.
Several European democracies have imposed different versions of youth curfews. In
Britain, a 1998 law allowed local councils to impose curfews for all children under ten. A Scottish
program mandates police officers to stop young people on the streets at night and divert them
towards youth activities available at clubs set up by the local council. Serbia has debated
extending wartime curfew policies for young people only. Curfews also have been introduced in
Australia. In the city of Perth, Australian lawmakers recently imposed a curfew for a year; they
report that the curfew has reduced crime and antisocial behavior.
108
Curfew laws in the United States have been challenged by the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU). ACLU lawyers argue that the curfew law violates young peoples rights under the
U.S. Constitution, including freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, freedom from
unreasonable detainment, fair treatment under the law, and the right to travel.
Not surprisingly, different challenges to local curfew laws in the United States have
yielded different results. A federal court declared that the curfew law in the city of Dallas, Texas,
was unconstitutional. The city appealed this decision to a higher court, and that court ruled that
the Dallas curfew was constitutional because it had the potential to reduce juvenile crime and
victimization. The higher court also ruled that certain exceptions in the curfew law provided
young people and their parents with enough freedom to move 44 about after curfew hours. Many
other communities followed Dallass example and established curfew laws. In 2001, however,
curfew laws were successfully challenged in the states of Alaska, New Jersey, New York, and
elsewhere. In those cases, curfew laws were found to violate the constitutional rights of young
people and their parents.
Balancing Rights and Safety
Most arguments about youth curfews address two main ideas: (1) the safety of youth and
society and (2) the rights of youth and adults.
1. The Safety of Young People and Society: advocates claim that youth curfews can help protect
vulnerable children. Most parents, they say, are responsible, but many cannot supervise their
children, who may then fall victim to street crime and accidents. Curfews, they say, can protect
undersupervised children and help parents face up to their responsibilities. Supporters also claim
that youth curfews can challenge negative youth attitudes in areas where defying the law is
considered desirable and gang membership is a status symbol. Curfews encourage young people
to spend more time with their families and in more positive activities, such as sports and youth
clubs.
People opposed to curfews argue that curfews limit the rights of parents to bring up their
children as they choose. Requiring adults to accompany their children to outside activities is
unreasonable and prejudicial because many adults dont believe they need to - or are unable to transport their children around the community.
Advocates of youth curfews also believe that these laws provide communities with fair
and positive means to reduce juvenile violence. Juvenile crime is a serious problem that often
involves drugs and violence. Gangs can terrorize communities and create a social climate in
which criminal activity becomes the norm. Youth curfews deal with these problems 66 by
keeping young people off the street and preventing them from congregating in the hours of
darkness.
Opponents of youth curfews are not convinced that such programs actually work. They
point to studies that show no direct link exists between juvenile crime rates and the enforcement
of youth curfews. Instead, these studies show other factors (for example, population shifts and
economic changes) have more impact on youth crime than do curfews. Additionally, these
109
studies found that most juvenile crime takes place between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. - after students are
released from school and before working parents return home - rather than during curfew hours.
Youth curfews, say their advocates, can support zero-tolerance policing. This strategy is
based on the theory that low-level crimes such as graffiti-tagging, window breaking, and drugdealing (all common juvenile offenses) can encourage development of a lawless environment
where more serious crimes can flourish.
Opponents suggest that imposing youth curfews has great potential for abuse and may
turn generally law-abiding young people into criminals. They note that more American children
are charged with curfew offenses than with any other crime. They also point out that statistics
from U.S. communities suggest that the police arrest more non-white than white youth for
curfew violations. They also say that curfews affect the poor more harshly: because youth in poor
neighborhoods have fewer places to play or hang out safely, their only option is staying on the
streets. Once burdened by a criminal record, many of these young people cross a psychological
boundary, perceiving themselves as outlaws. A criminal record reduces the employment
opportunities for youth and scars their futures. Enforcement of youth curfews can lead to a
deterioration in police-youth relations.
2. The Rights of Young and Older Citizens: opponents of youth curfews say that these policies
infringe upon the individual rights and liberties of young 89 people. Children, they say, have the
right to freedom of movement and assembly. Curfews hurt these rights. Young people,
particularly teenagers, have legitimate reasons to be out at night without adults. Many hold after
school jobs. Others participate in group activities at churches, youth clubs, or sports arenas.
Young citizens cannot learn how to be responsible unless they have opportunities to act
responsibly.
Opponents of curfews also note that this kind of law treats all young people as potential
law breakers. While only 0.2 percent of youth in the United States commit serious offenses, youth
curfews limit the remaining 99.8 percent of young people who seek to engage in legitimate
activities during nighttime hours. Moreover, curfew laws tend to discriminate by age, despite the
fact that young people commit fewer crimes than adults.
Supporters of youth curfew agree that such programs take the law-abiding majority of
young people off the streets. They see this restriction, however, as a protection and an advantage:
it protects the law-abiding youth from the law-breakers, and it gives the police the advantage of
focusing their resources on only those few young people actively breaking the law.
Balancing the rights and safety needs of youth and adults remains a challenge.
2. Youth curfews can help parents accept child-rearing responsibilities and help protect
vulnerable children who might otherwise fall prey to youth - or adult - predators.
3. Youth curfews can help create a safer community by stopping minor crimes and criminals
from progressing to more serious - and destructive - law-breaking. Curfews support zero
tolerance policing.
4. Youth curfews can discourage the growth of negative youth attitudes and behaviors about
defying the law and gang membership while they contribute to more positive, supervised
activities.
5. Youth curfews, by keeping the law-abiding majority of young people off the streets, allow
police to focus on serious lawbreakers.
111