Curfews and Common Sense
Published: June 11, 1996
The idea of imposing nighttime curfews on teen-agers is winning converts in high places. President Clinton recently urged more cities to adopt curfews to combat juvenile crime and promote family values. Bob Dole also spoke approvingly of the idea in a recent speech. Congress is considering $125 million in incentive grants to states that adopt various measures to combat juvenile crime, including curfews.
The Justice Department says that 146 of the nation's 200 largest cities now have curfews. Some cities report that curfews have curbed an alarming rise in the rate of violent crime by juveniles. This is encouraging news, but a few cautionary notes are in order. First, curfews should remain a matter of local option and not national law. That way, they can be most responsive to community needs. Curfews must be enforced equally in predominantly white and predominantly minority neighborhoods. Curfews are not a panacea and they cannot, by themselves, solve the problem of youth violence. Finally, there are alternatives that might prove equally if not more effective.
Typically, curfews require unsupervised youths aged 17 and under to be off the streets by 11 P.M. on weeknights and by midnight on weekends. Violators are often taken to curfew or recreation centers and must undergo counseling with their parents. Repeat violations could result in fines imposed on the child or the parents.
Civil libertarians are concerned that curfews infringe on teen-agers' constitutional rights to freedom of speech and assembly and to freedom from unreasonable searches. Thus, some curfews allow teens to gather for approved demonstrations. Also, in some cities, unsupervised teens are allowed out at night if they have to work, attend classes or respond to emergencies.
Since 1994, when a dusk-to-dawn curfew was imposed in New Orleans on youngsters under 17, the city reports a 20 percent decrease in juvenile crime. Dallas declares that violent juvenile crime has been reduced 30 percent and that overall juvenile crime has dropped nearly 21 percent since a curfew was instituted in 1994. Teen-agers themselves benefit from curfew programs, since they are often the victims of crimes by their peers.
But many large cities have rejected curfews as an inefficient use of police time and energy. In New York, where the Police Department has decided that it can use its resources more efficiently by cracking down on truancy, the juvenile crime rate has dropped 30 percent in the last three years. Many experts agree that putting truant teens back into classes keeps them in the school network and helps shield them from the street culture of gangs and violence.
Focusing on schools also makes sense for another reason. Most violent crimes committed by youths occur between the hours of 3 and 6 P.M., before curfews take effect. Often youngsters get into fights after classes that escalate into arrests for assault. Expanding after-school programs might be just as effective as curfews in keeping kids out of trouble.
It is also important to realize that many youngsters who roam the streets at night are not seeking mischief but are simply trying to escape family arguments and other forms of abuse and chaos at home. They need counseling and community-based social service programs that offer a safe haven. Restless teens also need more sports and recreational activities.
In that sense, curfews are but a short-term fix for deeper problems, and any politician who pretends otherwise is fooling himself and the public. The sensible and lasting solutions to teen-age crime are better schools, stronger families and well-financed, community-based recreational and remedial programs.