Parents could face jail time under New Jersey town's ordinance targeting children's unruly behavior
The Township of Gloucester Minors and Parents Responsibility Ordinance stipulates consequences, including jail time, for parents and guardians who "fail to prevent their children from breaking the law," according to a news release from police.
The ordinance was passed by the Township Council July 28 and was introduced after incidents of public disturbance involving kids at events like last year's Gloucester Township Day and Drone Show.
During that event, a large brawl involving teens broke out, and 11 people were arrested, including nine teenagers, according to NJ.com. Three police officers were also injured during the melee.
The event was postponed this year, the outlet reported, because social media posts suggested similar behavior was planned.
The ordinance includes 28 different offenses that range from felonies to minor infractions such as loitering, breaking curfew or chronic truancy.
"If a child is repeatedly found guilty in juvenile court, their caretaker could face up to 90 days in prison and/or a fine of up to $2,000," the department said.
Guardians will be issued a warning before a citation, Gloucester Township Police Chief David Harkins said, according to NewJersey.com.
"Our ordinance was actually sampled from other towns," he explained. "We're not necessarily the first, but we're probably the first bigger town to adopt it."
Fox News Digital has reached out to the Gloucester Township Police Department for comment.
Gloucester Township is about 15 miles from Philadelphia.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Man jailed after ‘hunting down police' with crossbow
Man jailed after 'hunting down police' with crossbow A man who stabbed a neighbour and shot an officer with a crossbow after attempting to 'hunt down' police has been jailed. On Wednesday, Aylesbury Crown Court heard Jason King had stabbed neighbour Alistair Mahwuto with a 'small knife' during an altercation which had arisen as a result of a 'long-standing' dispute. Police were called to the scene on School Close in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire, where King shot repeatedly at officers with a crossbow out of his upstairs window before chasing them with the weapon and shooting an officer, the court was told. The 55-year-old was later shot once by police in the stomach after refusing to put down the weapon when confronted by officers, the court heard. On Wednesday, King was jailed for nine years with a further three years on extended licence having previously pleaded guilty to unlawful wounding, having an article with a blade or point, having an offensive weapon, wounding with intent and affray regarding the incident on May 10 last year. The sentencing hearing heard that on the day before the shooting, King said his windows had been broken by a neighbour and had called police. Sentencing King, Judge Jonathan Cooper said he had been motivated in part during the shooting by 'revenge' and a 'sense of grievance' towards his neighbours and police who he believed had not handled the incident regarding his window appropriately. Judge Cooper said: 'I note that you purchased the crossbow, I don't accept it was for recreational purposes.' 'I consider that this was an attempt by you to arm yourself in the event of need,' he added. The judge said that King's actions, including chasing officers and continuing to shoot at them, were evidence of him 'attempting to settle a score with police'. 'It was as if you were trying to hunt down the officer, chasing him, aiming at his body,' he added. Prosecutor Graham Smith said the officer had seen King 'grinning' as he exited his address before shooting him in the leg, resulting in a two to three-centimetre wound near to an artery. King 'persisted' in pointing the crossbow at other officers who confronted him and, given that he had already shot an officer, police decided to shoot him, the prosecutor said. Mr Smith said it was the prosecution's case that it was 'great fortune' the officer who was shot had not suffered greater injuries and that King had appeared to be 'hunting' and 'stalking' the police. In a statement read to court, Mr Mahwuto, 63, who suffered a two-centimetre wound as a result of the stabbing, said the incident had 'affected me more than I would have ever imagined' and that a doctor had said his wound could have been fatal had it been a few centimetres higher. The officer shot by King said the incident had 'changed my outlook on life a bit', and that he feels more 'protective' about his colleagues now. In a statement read by Mr Smith, the officer said: 'I don't want anyone else to experience what I experienced, I hear jobs coming through on the radio and I don't want my colleagues going out to them.' He added that it had 'knocked' his confidence, and a doctor had told him the injury could have been 'catastrophic'. In mitigation, Mark Kimsey, defending, said King accepted the incident was 'very frightening' for those involved, and that he had been suffering from a 'worsening mental condition'. Mr Kimsey said it was 'not illegal' to possess the crossbow and that 'an adult is entitled to own an item without a licence'. He said: 'The item is one that can be freely purchased by anybody and cost less than £20 and was described as a 'pistol' crossbow.' Mr Kimsey added: 'It appeared at the time the defendant believed he was able to speak to the neighbour's dog, and speak in dog,' adding that King thought he had contact with an 'Egyptian god'. King, of School Close, High Wycombe, waved and made a heart gesture with his hands towards members of his family who were seated in the public gallery. The defendant, wearing a green long-sleeved top and a wooden beaded necklace, shook his head and interrupted the judge at points during the hearing. An investigation into the shooting of King by the police watchdog praised the 'courage, professionalism and sound judgment' of officers involved in the incident.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Will the Menendez brothers be released from prison? What to know about this week's parole hearings.
A California parole board will decide whether to grant the release of Erik and Lyle Menendez, who have been in prison for more than 30 years for the brutal 1989 murders of their parents. Parole hearings are scheduled later this week in the cases of Erik and Lyle Menendez, two brothers who have spent more than 30 years in prison for the brutal 1989 murders of their parents. The hearings could result in their release. The Menendez brothers were sentenced in 1996 to life in prison without parole. But earlier this year, a California judge reduced their prison sentences to 50 years to life, making them eligible for parole. "For more than 35 years, they have shown sustained growth. They've taken full accountability," their families said in a joint statement on Wednesday. "They express sincere remorse to our family to this day and have built a meaningful life defined by purpose and service." When are the hearings? Erik Menendez's parole suitability hearing is scheduled for Thursday at 11:30 a.m. ET/8:30 a.m. PT; Lyle Menendez's parole suitability hearing is set for Friday, also at 11:30 a.m. ET/8:30 a.m. PT. They will each appear via videoconference from the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility in San Diego, where they are being held. The hearings will be conducted by a panel of two or three board members, who will assess whether the brothers pose an 'unreasonable risk of danger to society' if released, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The panel will consider factors like criminal history, behavior in prison and statements from the brothers, family members, the district attorney's office and the public. Hearings typically take two to three hours to complete. They will not be televised, and no audio or video recordings are permitted. An assigned pool reporter will be allowed to observe the hearings and distribute updates during specified breaks. The murders and the trials Erik and Lyle Menendez killed their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, with shotguns at their Beverly Hills mansion on Aug. 20, 1989. They initially denied the killings, telling police they suspected the slayings were related to Jose Menendez's work as an entertainment executive. They were arrested in March 1990. At trial three years later, the brothers testified they killed their parents in self-defense after years of sexual abuse by their father, about which they said their mother was aware. Prosecutors argued that their motive for the killings was a multimillion-dollar inheritance. They were tried twice. A mistrial was declared in 1994 due to a hung jury. In 1996, Erik and Lyle were convicted on first-degree murder charges and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Many details of the alleged sexual abuse they experienced were not permitted during the retrial. In 1998, a California appeals court upheld their convictions. Subsequent appeals to the higher courts were also denied. The Netflix series and a fight for freedom The case was thrust back into the public eye last year thanks to the hit Netflix drama series Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story. Last fall, then-Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón recommended that the brothers be resentenced, saying, 'I believe they have paid their debt to society." Gascón said he thought that Erik and Lyle, who are now 54 and 57 years old, respectively, had rehabilitated themselves while incarcerated, earning advanced degrees, participating in self-help classes and creating various support groups for their fellow inmates. Gascón also said his office was reviewing new evidence that their attorneys said corroborated the allegations of sexual abuse. He recommended that their sentence be reduced from life without the possibility of parole to 50 years to life, making them immediately eligible for parole under California law because they were younger than 26 when they committed the killings. (Erik was 18; Lyle was 21.) But Gascón's successor, Nathan Hochman, opposed resentencing, saying that the brothers had failed to take 'complete responsibility' for the double murder, including their initial claim that they did not kill their parents. "These murders were calculated, premeditated, cold-blooded killings," Hochman said in a statement on April 11. "Our position remains clear: Until the Menendez brothers finally come clean with all their lies of self-defense and suborning and attempting to suborn perjury, they are not rehabilitated and pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety." In May, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic reduced their sentences to 50 years to life after a resentencing hearing, which included testimony from relatives, a retired judge, a former fellow inmate and the brothers themselves. "I committed an atrocious act," Erik Menendez told Jesic. "I have no excuse, no justification for what I did." "I killed my mom and dad," Lyle Menendez told the judge. "I give no excuses. I take full responsibility.' What's next? After the parole hearings, the board will issue a written decision recommending whether or not they should be granted parole. If the board recommends parole be granted, the decision is subject to review by the board's legal division and California Gov. Gavin Newsom before becoming final. The board's chief legal counsel has up to 120 days to review the decision, according to the parole board. If approved by the counsel, the decision will be turned over to Newsom, who has an additional 30 days to decide whether to accept, reject or modify it. If Newsom accepts the board's decision to grant parole, they'd be eligible for release immediately. However, if the board denies them parole, the brothers would have to wait at least three years for the panel to reconsider their case. Earlier this year, Newsom ordered a risk assessment investigation for the parole board to determine whether the brothers pose a public safety threat if released. 'There's no guarantee of outcome here," Newsom said on his podcast in February. "My office conducts dozens and dozens of these clemency reviews on a consistent basis, but this process simply provides more transparency, which I think is important in this case.'
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NYC Mayor Eric Adams' former chief adviser to face more charges: Lawyer
Ingrid Lewis-Martin, New York City Mayor Eric Adams' former chief adviser who remains a volunteer on his reelection campaign, will appear in court Thursday to face additional charges, her lawyer said. The lawyer, Arthur Aidala, said the Manhattan District Attorney's Office declined to provide details about the new charges. "Despite a lifetime of service as a law-abiding public servant, Ingrid is being forced to enter court with little information. What she does know is this: she has always served the City with integrity, and she will firmly plead not guilty to every charge," Aidala said in a statement. "While the specifics remain unclear, Ingrid is certain of one thing -- she has broken no laws, and she is not guilty. We will be requesting an expedited trial schedule." Adams, who is trying to revive a lagging reelection campaign, is not expected to be charged with any wrongdoing and a spokesperson said the new charges against Lewis-Martin have nothing to do with him. This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
