![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chaotic_nippleCourtesy of ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
filkertom:
Cities cracking down on saggy pants
RENTON, N.J. - It's a fashion that started in prison, and now the saggy pants craze has come full circle — low-slung street strutting in some cities may soon mean run-ins with the law, including a stint in jail.
Proposals to ban saggy pants are starting to ride up in several places. At the extreme end, wearing pants low enough to show boxers or bare buttocks in one small Louisiana town means six months in jail and a $500 fine. A crackdown also is being pushed in Atlanta. And in Trenton, getting caught with your pants down may soon result in not only a fine, but a city worker assessing where your life is headed.
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that juvenile delinquents _are_ more likely to wear these idiotic fashions. How, exactly, is preventing them from wearing size-70 pants with no belts going to prevent them from being juvenile delinquents in the first place? Surely, all these laws will accomplish is make it harder to identify the little hooligans? Furthermore, the pants in question make it more difficult for the thugs to run from the police, thereby making them less EFFECTIVE criminals. Shouldn't we be encouraging this?
It reminds me of the story I read about the British politician who wanted to ban cell phone cameras because they were associated with "happy slapping". As far as I'm concerned, it's a GOOD THING when petty criminals record evidence that can be used against them.
filkertom:Cities cracking down on saggy pants
RENTON, N.J. - It's a fashion that started in prison, and now the saggy pants craze has come full circle — low-slung street strutting in some cities may soon mean run-ins with the law, including a stint in jail.
Proposals to ban saggy pants are starting to ride up in several places. At the extreme end, wearing pants low enough to show boxers or bare buttocks in one small Louisiana town means six months in jail and a $500 fine. A crackdown also is being pushed in Atlanta. And in Trenton, getting caught with your pants down may soon result in not only a fine, but a city worker assessing where your life is headed.
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that juvenile delinquents _are_ more likely to wear these idiotic fashions. How, exactly, is preventing them from wearing size-70 pants with no belts going to prevent them from being juvenile delinquents in the first place? Surely, all these laws will accomplish is make it harder to identify the little hooligans? Furthermore, the pants in question make it more difficult for the thugs to run from the police, thereby making them less EFFECTIVE criminals. Shouldn't we be encouraging this?
It reminds me of the story I read about the British politician who wanted to ban cell phone cameras because they were associated with "happy slapping". As far as I'm concerned, it's a GOOD THING when petty criminals record evidence that can be used against them.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-18 09:53 pm (UTC)I guess the whole concept of fighting poverty just doesn't occur to them. stupid atl government.
anyway, I can't imagine this law would in any way be constitutional. The ACLU is already fighting it.
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-18 09:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-18 11:19 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-18 11:37 pm (UTC)*giggles rudely*
(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-19 12:33 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-20 08:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2007-09-20 08:57 pm (UTC)Fiona
oops....
Date: 2007-09-20 09:06 pm (UTC)Fiona
Re: oops....
Date: 2007-09-20 09:52 pm (UTC)