NCJ Number
171794
Journal
Subject to Debate Volume: 10 Issue: 1/2 Dated: (January/February 1996) Pages: 1,6-7
Date Published
1996
Length
3 pages
Annotation
This article documents the prevalence of juvenile curfew laws in the United States, reviews the arguments for and against them, and discusses their effectiveness.
Abstract
At least 75 percent of the 200 U.S. cities with populations over 100,000 now have juvenile curfews, and FBI crime statistics indicate that 50 percent of the 85,000 teenagers arrested for curfew violations in 1993 lived in cities with populations under 100,000. The logic of curfews is that juveniles kept at home are less likely to engage in criminal activity with peers and are less likely to be victimized. Further, curfews bolster the authority of parents who are attempting to set limits on the nighttime activities of their children. Opponents of curfews argue that it is an unconstitutional infringement of the fundamental rights of juveniles; curfews are unenforceable and a waste of police resources; and curfews are a racist overreaction by the white majority, will place a disproportionate burden on minority communities due to unequal enforcement, and will lead to harassment and criminalization of minority youths. Although there are no scientifically rigorous evaluations of well-enforced curfew ordinances, indications are that to be effective curfews must be combined with other crime control measures. Other measures might be antigang, antigraffiti, and anticruising ordinances; proactive community policing strategies; antidrug and illegal-gun interdiction; and more effective treatment and incarceration programs for young offenders. These measures must be accompanied by efforts to revitalize public education, strengthen families, minimize illegitimacy, expand employment opportunities, and increase cultural and recreational opportunities.