Sally walked out of the coffee shop downtown and wandered to her car. It was about 12:15 a. m. on one Tuesday over the summer, and her parents had set her curfew for 12:30 a. m. Sally thought she would be home right on time; unfortunately, the Roanoke City Council though otherwise. Since Sally is 16, she is breaking the teenage curfew in Roanoke City. Roanoke’s curfew, which took effect July 31, 1992, requires that teens 16 and under be off the streets by 11 p. m. from Sunday through Thursday and by 12 p. m. on Friday and Saturday (Turner, “Council” B3).
Because Sally’s arents did not set her curfew in compliance with the one Roanoke City had set for their child, Sally is now a criminal. Is that really what Roanoke wants to happen. By setting a teenage curfew, Roanoke City is undermining parental authority and turning innocent teens into criminals. Roanoke, however, is not the only locality that is issuing curfew laws. A survey from the Justice Department found that nearly three-quarters of the 200 largest cities in the united States have implemented curfew laws to lower juvenile crime rates (Gostomski 2).
Though backers of curfew laws pplaud their effectiveness in this capacity, statistics show no support for their claim that curfews reduce youth crime. As curfews are put into effect across the country, the American Civil Liberties Union and the courts are beginning to question their constitutionality. Though curfew laws are disguised as a mechanism to protect teens and reduce youth crime, they are unconstitutional, ill-advised, and ineffective. Curfew laws violate the basic constitutional guarantees in the Bill of Rights.
Though teenagers are minors, they are still citizens and not exempt from basic constitutional rights. Courts throughout the United States have thrown out local curfew laws, citing various violations of juveniles’ constitutional protections. The 9th U. S. District Court of Appeals threw out a San Diego curfew because it infringed upon youth’s first amendment right to speech (Gostomski 4). In Dallas, U. S. District Court Judge Jerry Buchmeyer said the city curfew defied minors’ right to freedom of association (Turner, “Constitutionality” B3).
The Supreme Court in Washington state has twice ruled that curfews cannot be ordered upon any citizen unless there is a state of emergency (Brown and Santana). Since curfews began to reappear in the 1980s and 1990s, the American Civil Liberties Union has been fighting their constitutionality because “they punish law-abiding teens more than true criminal” (“Survey”). Along with these infractions, challengers of curfew laws have cited their violation of freedoms of religion and assembly, rights to travel, and rights against unreasonable search and seizure (Crowell 5).
Also, opponents say curfew laws violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (Crowell 5). Experts say that “it s trick, if not impossible, to craft a curfew law that protects the constitutional rights of minors” (“Problems”). If curfew laws do not protect the constitutional rights of minors, they violate the fundamental principles of the United States, and lawmakers should repeal them. Curfew laws, when they are implemented, lead to antagonism between law abiding teenagers and the police force, and often turn innocent teenagers into criminals.
Also, these laws create a stereotype that all teens are delinquents. Curfew laws allow police to arrest minors for offenses that are not crimes if adults commit them. When teens break the curfew law, they change from law-abiding citizens into criminals. This precedent creates tension between all teens, lawful and unlawful alike, and adults, especially law enforcement officers (Macallair and Males). To teenagers, police represent the unjust curfew laws that oppress them. To police officers, all teens that stay out past curfew hour are criminals.
A U. S. District Court threw out a curfew law in the District of Columbia on the basis that it did not differentiate between innocent teens and those who were a threat to society (Racine 233). Lumping all teenagers together tereotypes them in society. a study by Gallup Polls in 1994 shows that “the average adult believes juveniles commit 43% of violent crime, when the actual figure is just 13%” (Allen 2).
Also, most teens are not violent offenders. One survey showed that only 0. 5% of youths engage in violent acts (Allen 3). Curfew laws punish the 99. 5% of teenagers that are law abiding. y grouping all teens together, curfew laws contribute to the belief that youths are the downfall of society and lead to tension between those teens who are not a detriment to the community and law enforcement.
Along with leading to tension and antagonism, curfew laws distract police from more important and pressing matters. Spending time targeting innocent teens out past curfew and transporting them to police headquarters or to their homes is an inefficient way to deter crime (“Survey”). As Jordan Budd of the American Civil Liberties Union said, “Police already have the ability to arrest teenagers involved in real crime.
The curfew adds nothing more than the obligation to arrest the innocent as well” (qtd in Allen 4). Moreover, the curfew laws cost taxpayer money that the police departments do not have to spend. In a survey by the united States Conference of Mayors, 23% of cities with curfews reported that the paperwork, court appearances, and other aspects involved with their teenage curfew created additional costs for police departments (Cohn 88). This places excessive strain on localities that are already financially burdened and understaffed (Crowell 6).
If law enforcement is unable to properly enforce curfew laws, the value of more important laws may be degraded in the minds of youths (Bey and Smullyan-Capra 35). If they are not going to be punished for breaking curfew laws, they may not feel obligated to follow ther, more vital laws. Since statistics show that the “rates of serious crime among youths are strongly correlated with those of adults around them, both by local area and over time,” a more effective task for police would be to attempt to locate and punish adult criminals (Macallair and Males).
Instead of focusing on punishing law abiding teens, a more efficient use of police time and energy to deter crime would be to take steps to target adult criminals. Along with being unconstitutional and inefficient, curfew laws interfere with the rights of parents to set limits for their children and et the precedent that government control is a viable substitute for parental discretion. By taking away the responsibility of parents to supervise their own children, curfew laws take away their accountability for their children.
When the government sets curfews for teens, it disciplines and sets boundaries in place of parents, impeding upon their authority. On the basis that it violated parents rights to govern their children, a Court of Appeals in Washington State overturned a local curfew law (Brown and Santana). Also, in a ruling by the 9th U. S. District Court f Appeals, a San Diego curfew was repealed because it “usurped the roles of legal guardians” (Gostomski 4). By invading the home and setting curfews, government is violating the parent’s constitutional right to privacy (Crowell 5).
Teenage curfews are a family matter, which should be left to private discretion. Giving the power to set curfews to the government only dissipates parental authority and gives parents an excuse not to discipline their children. Most curfew supporters dismiss the opposition to youth curfews, citing the benefits of curfews in reducing juvenile crime. Statistical analysis, however, does not support the notion that stricter curfew enforcement reduces teenage crime in any way.
A report by the Los Angeles police department found that active curfew enforcement, including task forces, citations, and arrests, had no noticeable effect on juvenile crime (Macallair and Males). The ineffectiveness of curfews is not isolated to Los Angeles, though. An in-depth study of curfew laws throughout California by the Justice Policy Institute found “no support for the proposition that stricter curfew enforcement reduces youth crime, either absolutely or elative to adults, by location, by city, or by type of crime” (Macallair and Males).
In most cases, curfew laws had no effect on juvenile crime. When they did, though, stricter curfew enforcement was usually coupled with an increase in teenage crime rates (Macallair and males). One study suggest that curfews simply displace juvenile crime to the hours after school and before curfew (Goo 1A). Though supporters hail curfews as aiding the prevention of juvenile crime, statistical analysis of youth arrest data shows no support for their assertion, finding no correlation between curfew nforcement and a reduction in juvenile crime.
Though, on paper, curfew laws for teenagers sound like a viable option, they violate basic constitutional guarantees, punish law-abiding teenagers, are an inefficient use of police resources, usurp parental authority, and are ineffective at reducing youth crime. In actuality, teenage curfew laws are “purely cosmetic” (“More Curfew” A6). They are a way for politicians and lawmakers to claim they are doing something to reduce youth crime (“More Curfews” A6). In reality, when curfew laws do have an impact, statistics show that they are usually coupled with an ncrease in youth crime rates (Macallair and Males).
This increased crime rate probably comes from the law abiding teens that become criminals after police pick them up for curfew violations. If curfews only serve to turn innocent teens into lawbreakers, they are a waste of police time and money. Instead of robbing parents of the right to supervise their teenagers in order to reduce teenage crime, legislators should try a more effective approach. Police should continue to enforce the existing laws, and localities should present alternative activities for teenagers (“Problems”). Teenage curfew laws, though, must be opposed.
They are age discrimination in its purest form, judging a group of people based on its worst members. This discrimination not only judges but punishes innocent youths simply because they are young. This is the very situation the Constitution of the United States is designed to protect against. Somehow, though, when it comes to minors, lawmakers’ vision becomes cloudy. They find it easy to impress curfew laws upon innocent teens and helpless parents. Since curfew laws are unconstitutional, ineffective, and discriminatory, they can only be detrimental to society.
