There are certain laws in California that seem to do more harm than good for residents. These laws are often unfollowed and are only enforced so that they’re able to possibly target a certain group of people or are easily broken.
These types of laws include ones that prohibit jaywalking, require residents to obtain dog licenses and mandate people be 21 in order to drink in the United States.
It is arguable whether these legislations’ goals set out to keep residents safe or if the extent of their terms are even necessary.
The act of jaywalking, which is crossing the street illegally or carelessly, will no longer be against the law in California as of Jan. 1, 2023, according to an Oct. 1 Los Angeles Times article.
The “Freedom to Walk” bill, sponsored by San Francisco Assemblyman Phil Ting, will allow pedestrians to cross the street outside of an intersection without being fined, “unless a reasonably careful person would realize there is an immediate danger of collision with a moving vehicle or other device moving exclusively by human power,” according to the Los Angeles Times article.
Considering the number of people I see jaywalking everyday, it is about time that it becomes a legal act.
Pedestrians are fully capable of determining when it is safe to cross the street and should be able to do so without a crosswalk.
Jaywalking tickets are also more likely to be given out to people of color and it can be difficult for those in poverty to pay the fines.
“Black residents are up to 4.3 times more likely to be stopped for jaywalking than white residents,” according to a graph by CalBike, the California Bicycle Coalition.
CalBike is an organization dedicated to getting rid of the structural racism built into California’s infrastructure and policies, according to its website.
Police officers are just using jaywalking as a way to criminalize and fine minority residents when they haven’t really done anything wrong. These pedestrians should not be charged for safely crossing a street in their own neighborhood.
“When expensive tickets and unnecessary confrontations with police impact only certain communities, it’s time to reconsider how we use our law enforcement resources and whether our jaywalking laws really do protect pedestrians…,” said Ting according to the same Los Angeles Times article.
Making jaywalking illegal has only put people of color in more danger of being fined, meanwhile white people can do it without any regard and are less likely to be given consequences.
“Jaywalking was invented by the auto industry as a way of shifting the blame for traffic crimes off automobile drivers and onto pedestrians,” according to Grunge, a website that offers different news on different topics.
Citizens will now be protected by the law when jaywalking safely and minorities will not have to be targeted for a harmless crime, at least this one.
Another California law that can disproportionately affect low-income communities is having to get a license for your dog.
“California state law requires all dogs over 4 months old to be licensed and vaccinated for rabies,” according to the official Riverside city website.
I agree that all dogs should be vaccinated for rabies, but dog licenses should not be required.
Adopting a dog already comes with numerous fees and residents should not have to be concerned with also licensing their dog.
Residents are often unaware that this is even a law and end up with extreme fines for simply having a dog. In Sacramento, pet owners who fail to pay the $20 annual fee for neutered dogs have to pay a $300 fine, according to a June 2017 ABC 10 news article.
“In a number of cities across the country, animal control agencies are aggressively going after pet owners with big fines for small violations. Some hold people's pets until they settle their bills, even if it means they end up killed,” according to a 2015 article from CNN Money.
A pet is like an additional family member and in some cases people are forced to give up their dogs because they cannot afford this fee.
“Last year, Riverside County inspectors incited controversy for going door-to-door and giving out citations of up to $400 per dog in Indio's low-income and mainly Hispanic neighborhoods,” according to the same CNN Money article. The article also states that fines were given out without the dogs even being looked at in some cases.
A person should be able to have a pet as their companion without worrying about having to register it.
My parents were always concerned about the city finding out about our dogs because they were unable to afford licensing fees even though our dogs were vaccinated and neutered.
This law only makes it harder for people to adopt and keep their dogs, and forces dogs back into shelters where they may never find homes again.
The drinking age in the U.S. is another law that sparks debate among people of all ages.
You have to be 21 to legally drink alcohol in the U.S., but in many other countries it is anywhere from 18 to 20. “Globally, of 194 countries the MLDA (Minimum Legal Drinking Age) is most often 18 (109 countries)...” according to Procon.org, an information source that presents unbiased pros and cons of controversial issues.
Despite this, numerous people begin drinking at ages younger than 21 years old.
“In fact, more than 70 percent of teens have consumed at least one alcoholic beverage by the time they reach age 18, which is still under the legal age,” according to American Addiction Centers.
Now while I don’t agree that kids should be drinking, the drinking age should be reduced to 18 years old.
It does not make sense that at 18 years old you are considered an adult, able to be drafted for war and vote for the president of the United States, but you cannot buy an alcoholic drink.
I also know from personal experience that college students will find ways to participate in underage drinking.
Many college students who are younger than 21 years old are also living on their own and capable of making life decisions like drinking alcohol.
If a person wants to have a drink at 18 years old, they can and will find a way, and it should be legal.
These laws were put into place with the intention of protecting residents from danger and they might have accomplished that in some ways. However, these laws are also broken every day and enforced at police officers’ discretion.
Laws similar to these need to either be fully and fairly enforced or altered in order to do what they originally set out to: protect and provide security to residents.
