Juvenile Curfews
Juvenile delinquency has long been rooted in the American culture. Youthful offenders have committed status offenses and more serious crimes since the inception of this country. Throughout our history criminal justice practitioners and politicians have debated and enacted legislation in a hope of controlling juvenile crime. Some measures were found to be effective while the vast majority have failed. And so goes the revolving door of juvenile justice.
Over the past two decades we have seen youthful offenders commit increasingly heinous acts of violence. Their rage and disregard for the sanctity of life and personal property has escalated over time. The Juvenile Justice System has been stretched to its tearing point with decreasing funding and limited personnel. Yet the public outcry for relief seems to fall on deaf ears. However, the hearing loss of our politicians appears to be magically corrected every two to four years. Election time usually spurs an interest in juvenile crime for those who are seeking public office. It is politically appealing to politicians because they know the citizenry is actively engaged in the issue. Soon after the political rhetoric and maneuvering, the glamorous ideas slowly disintegrate and we return to a limited state of chaos in regards to juvenile crime and delinquency. Yet one concept continues to surface and that is the application of a juvenile curfew.
Many people have pondered the notion of enacting a juvenile
curfew in an attempt to reduce juvenile crime and truancy. The possibility of
restricting movement through forced home detention has been an extremely
divisive social issue spurring heated debate over its’ constitutionality. As
with every issue, there are two schools of thought that fuel the arguments. The
premise of juvenile curfews is that serious criminal activity committed by
youthful offenders will decrease if children under the age of 18 are confined
to their residences once the sun goes down. The ideology herein is similar to
Cinderella’s Ball and the events that transpire at the stroke of
At the core of the issue is the balance between a persons’ individual liberty and the protection of the community. Even more so is the problematic notion that a juvenile’s rights should be more segregated and less protected from that of their adult counterparts. These points seem to transcend the issue of a simple curfew ordinance. A conviction held by the founding fathers that all of us are created equal and that no person is better than another has been the foundation of the U.S. Constitution. We all have fundamental rights to engage in free speech, move about in an unconstrained manner, associate with just about any person and practice our chosen religion. However, to a certain extent that is not entirely true of persons under the age of 18. Parents have a limited legal right to constrain their children from engaging in detrimental activities. They can limit their interaction with certain people, set in-house curfews and control monetary provisions to name a few. However, once a parent loses control of their child it can become a community problem with many looking for government intervention. Thus, juvenile curfews become the forethought of those who desire a sweeping janitorial approach to the issue.
Opponents to curfews argue that juvenile restrictions violate the first and fourteenth amendments regarding such closely held rights. They hold a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and adamantly believe that parental responsibility is being superseded by government intervention. To a certain extent that appears to be a valid argument. Many criminologists have suggested that there is a strong correlation between crime and the breakdown of the family. When there is no role model or positive influence in the life of a child, the youth seeks out the affection and direction of others. This may lead to negative interactions and chart a course of criminal endeavors. There is no disputing the fact that adolescents are a critical time-period for the cognitive, emotional and physical development of a child. Therefore, it is imperative that our children are properly mentored during this period of human growth. Parents, church elders and school personnel should take a more active role in the lives of our youth. A strong family base of moral conviction is often times the preventive measure that controls juvenile crime and delinquency.
There is another sector of our society that plays an important role in combating juvenile crime and delinquency. Law enforcement agencies have long been engaged in the battle and are constantly hopeful for a solution to the problem. Most are staunch advocates for the utilization of curfews as a means to an end. However, nocturnal curfews may not be the best law enforcement approach to resolving this issue. A juvenile curfew ordinance might give the police the sort of arbitrary and unbridled powers that the general citizenry wants to avoid. This type of wide-reaching law enforcement practice could severely encroach upon our most basic civil liberties…the freedom of movement void of governmental intervention. In addition, consider the fact that a violation of an ordinance is usually only a low-level misdemeanor. The corresponding punishment doesn’t even equate to level of criminality that the curfew is intending to suppress. The juvenile curfew ideology is certainly not counterbalanced with the perceived loss of fundamental liberties.
Opponents of the curfew believe that throwing a net in the direction of perceived criminals may just entangle law abiding people within our community. Many school-aged children actively participate in after-hours extracurricular activities such as basketball, football, musicals and religious events. These venues have been known to take place in the early evening hours and extend to later in the night. It is probable to surmise that a nocturnal curfew would severely curtail these community approved functions. In essence, we would be impeding the innocence of youth for the delinquent and criminal acts committed by their problematic counterparts.
Supporters of the nighttime ban on streetwalking juveniles adamantly believe that such a preemptive approach to crime will make the community a safer place to reside. They argue that youthful offenders will not have the opportunity to engage in mischievous conduct while being placed under house arrest until sunrise. There may be some merit to this argument. Children at home are less likely to commit criminal acts in the public venue. However, empirical research supporting that premise is wholly unavailable.
It is easy to legitimize the arguments of those in favor of suppressing the notion that nocturnal curfews are an effective means of controlling the abhorrent behavior of some juveniles. On the contrary, the impingement of fundamental civil liberties appears to be a valid concern regarding the use of curfews as a tool in the suppression of juvenile crime/delinquency. Thus it appears as though we are facing quite a conundrum which is destined for Supreme Court interpretation. To date, the Justices have not granted certiorari or heard any oral arguments concerning the matter. Therefore, we have not been given any clear guidelines regarding the constitutional issues attached to nocturnal juvenile curfews. Until such time we will continue to search for equilibrium between community safety and individual liberty as the revolving door of juvenile justice continues to spin.
One thing is clear though, when we decide to move the line and rein in civil liberties we begin to walk the slippery slope of injustice. Once a juvenile curfew is enacted, other more restrictive legislation may be promulgated that could chip away at the rights of all people, including adults.
Dr. Santarlas is a former Deputy Chief of Police. Thomas Santarlas