Cargos por la Realización de los Estudios de Conexión

More than 300 US towns have passed local curfew laws making it illegal for youths to be out-of-doors between certain publicized times. In most cases cities imposed nighttime curfews, but a 1997 survey indicated that approximately one-quarter had daytime curfews as well. All curfews are aimed at proactively reducing juvenile crime and gang activity. Officials also see curfews as a way of involving parents and keeping young people from being victimized. Opponents say the curfews violate the rights of good kids to prevent the actions of a few bad ones.

PROS

Youth crime is a major and growing problem, often involving both drugs and violence. Particularly worrying is the rise of youth gangs, which can terrorize urban areas and create a social climate in which criminality becomes the norm. Imposing curfews on minors can help solve these problems. They keep young people off the street and out of trouble. Curfews are easy to enforce com- pared to other forms of crime prevention and are there- fore effective.

The use of curfews can help protect vulnerable children. Although responsible parents do not let young children out in the streets after dark, not all parents are respon- sible. Inevitably their children suffer, both from crime and in accidents, and are likely to fall into bad habits. Society should ensure that such neglected children are returned home safely and that their parents are made to face up to their responsibilities.

Children have no good reason to be out alone late at night, so a curfew is not really a restriction on their lib- erty. They would be better off at home doing schoolwork and participating in family activities.

Child curfews are a form of zero-tolerance policing. The idea of zero tolerance comes from the theory that if the police ignore low-level crimes they create a permissive

CONS

Curfews are not an effective solution to the problem of youth crime. Research finds no link between reduction in juvenile crime and curfews. Although some towns with curfews did see a drop in youth crime, this often had more to do with other law-enforcement strategies, such as zero-tolerance policing, or with demographic and economic changes in the youth population. In any case, most juvenile crime takes place between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m., after the end of school and before working par- ents return home, rather than in the hours covered by curfews.

Youth curfews infringe upon individual rights and liber- ties. Children have a right to freedom of movement and assembly, which curfews directly undermine by crimi- nalizing their simple presence in a public space. This reverses the presumption of innocence by assuming all young people are potential lawbreakers. They are also subject to blanket discrimination on the grounds of age, although only a few young people commit crimes. Fur- thermore, curfews infringe upon the rights of parents to bring up their children as they choose. Just because we dislike the way some parents treat their children does not mean that we should intervene. Should we intervene in families whose religious beliefs mean girls are treated as inferior to boys, or in homes where parents practice corporal punishment?

Children in their mid-teens have legitimate reasons to be out at night without adults. Many have part-time jobs. Others participate in church groups or youth clubs. Requiring adults to take them to and from activities is unreasonable. It will ensure many children do not par- ticipate in after-school activities either because adults are unwilling or are unable to accompany them. On a more sinister note, some children are subject to abuse at home and actually feel safer out on the streets.

Youth curfews have great potential for abuse, raising civil rights issues. Evidence suggests that police arrest far more black children than white for curfew violations. Curfews

atmosphere in which serious crime can flourish and law and order breaks down entirely. Child curfews can help the police establish a climate of zero tolerance and create a safer community for everyone.

Child curfews can help change a negative youth culture in which challenging the law is seen as desirable and gang membership an aspiration. Impressionable youngsters would be kept away from gang activity on the streets at night, and a cycle of admiration and recruitment would be broken. By spending more time with their families and in more positive activities such as sports, which cur- fews make a more attractive option for bored youngsters, children will develop greater self-esteem and discipline.

We should try other ways of reducing youth crime, but they will work best in conjunction with curfews. If a troubled area develops a culture of lawlessness, identify- ing specific youngsters for rehabilitation becomes more difficult. A curfew takes the basically law-abiding major- ity off the streets, allowing the police to engage with the most difficult element. Curfews are a tool in the struggle to improve lives in rundown areas. They are likely to be used for relatively short periods to bring a situation under control so that other measures can be put in place and given a chance to work.

tend to be imposed in inner cities with few places for children to amuse themselves safely and legally. Curfews compound the social exclusion that many poor children feel with physical exclusion from public spaces. This problem is made worse by the inevitable deterioration in relations between the police and the young people sub- ject to the curfew.

Imposing curfews on children would actually be coun- ter-productive because it would turn millions of law- abiding young people into criminals. More American children are charged with curfew offenses than with any other crime. Once children acquire a criminal record, they cross a psychological boundary, making it much more likely that they will perceive themselves as crimi- nals and have much less respect for the law. This can lead to more serious offenses. At the same time, a crimi- nal record decreases the chances for employment and so contributes to the social deprivation and desperation that breed crime.

A number of alternative strategies exist that are likely to do more to reduce youth crime. Rather than a blan- ket curfew, individual curfews could be imposed upon particular troublemakers. Another successful strategy is working individually with young troublemakers. For example, authorities can require them to meet with vic- tims of crime so that they understand the consequences of their actions. Youths can also be paired with trained mentors. Overall, the government needs to ensure good educational opportunities and employment prospects so that youngsters feel some hope for their futures.

PROS CONS

Sample Motions:

This House would introduce child curfews. This House would lock up its daughters.

This House believes children should be neither seen nor heard.

Web Links:

• American Civil Liberties Union. <http://www.aclu.org/search/search_wrap.html?account=436ac9516921&q=curfew+laws> Links to articles on the legal status of curfews.

• Status Report on Youth Curfews in American Cities. <http://www.usmayors.org/uscm/news/publications/curfew.htm> Summary of 1997 survey of 374 cities providing status of curfews and information on their effectiveness.

Further Reading:

Jensen, Gary, and Dean G. Rojek. Delinquency and Youth Crime. Waveland Press, 1998.

0|The Debatabase Book