Curfews are not just a product of today’s contemporary society. The word curfew comes from the French term, “courvrefeu,” meaning “to cover fire.” In the feudal era, a bell would ring to alert the villagers to put out their fires and go to bed for the night. William the Conqueror even used an 8:00 p.m. curfew in 1068. The United States has used curfews during wartimes and emergencies since before the Civil War, but juvenile curfews did not become widespread until the late nineteenth century (O’Neil, 2002). Juvenile crime was blamed on immigrant children and their parent’s lack of control over their children. This led to the support and enactment of curfews for minors in almost 3000 cities in the United States by 1900. It wasn’t until World War II that they became a popular way to battle juvenile crime (Lester, as cited in O’Neil, 2002).
By 1995, 77% of cities with populations greater than 200,000 had some form of juvenile curfew, 60% of which were either enacted or enhanced after 1990. The popularity of curfews was not limited to large cities: in 1995, 73% of cities of more than 100,000 had curfews and by 1997, 80% of communities with populations greater than 30,000 had curfews (“Juvenile Curfews and the Major Confusion over Minor Rights,” 2005). A teen curfew is justified in many cities or municipalities as a simple method to not only reduce opportunities for teens to commit crimes but also to protect them from becoming crime victims themselves. The popularity of a nighttime curfew continues today with cities and towns all across the United States with juvenile curfew ordinances.
Juvenile curfews have stirred quite a controversy in recent years, specifically in the area of constitutionality. Although advocates say that teen curfews are necessary in protecting youths from crime and others from youth crime, critics say that minors have a constitutional right to be on the streets at night. Many cite the famed juvenile case, In re Gault. In this case the court held that, “whatever may be their precise impact neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Bill of Rights is for adults alone” (387 US 1, 1967 as cited in “Juvenile Curfews and the Major Confusion over Minor Rights,” 2005). However, as in many legal issues, there are conflicting court decisions in the application of the constitutional rights of minors. The court has also indicated that the rights of minors are not equivalent to those who have reached the age of majority. In Prince v. Massachusetts, for example, it held that, “[t]he state’s authority over children’s activities is broader than over the like actions of adults” (“Juvenile Curfews and the Major Confusion over Minor Rights,” 2005).
The question is whether the rights of minors are sufficiently different to warrant strict scrutiny reviews for the curfew laws that effect such a large population. Strict scrutiny requires that any measure infringing the fundamental rights of an adult class be narrowly tailored to promote a compelling governmental interest (Budd, 1999). In considering a challenge to San Diego’s juvenile curfew, the Ninth Circuit ruled that rights were equally as fundamental for minors as for adults. The court concluded that this made the curfew subject to a strict scrutiny review. However, the court also expressed that, “minors’ rights are not coextensive with the rights of adults because the state has a greater range of interests that justify the infringement of [such rights]” (Nunez v. City of San Diego as cited in Budd, 1999). This would permit other status offenses to remain in effect, such as truancy and alcohol consumption. In San Diego, the court concluded that the curfew was not viewed as “narrowly tailored” and was struck down (Budd, 1999). The confusion over minor’s rights and the constitutionality of curfew laws will continue as courts attempt to balance the rights of minors and the compelling need of a government to protect its youth.
Other important issues concerning nighttime curfews for juveniles are the effectiveness and enforcement. Proponents often say that curfews for minors are necessary for public order and protection. They also justify curfews by explaining that juveniles have never had the same rights as adults. For centuries, children have been subject to their parents control and curfews, arguably, positively enhance parental control. Status offenses are enforced all over the country despite any apparent restriction of a minor’s rights. The effectiveness of a curfew law is an issue that has become difficult to prove. Critics of teen curfews have argued that they have little impact on serious juvenile crimes. These critics cite statistics indicating that most of these offenses occur in the after-school hours before parents return home from work (Seibert, as cited in Ford & Sutphen, 2001). Violent crimes by juveniles peaked between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. (the hour at the end of the school day) and then generally declined hour by hour until the low point at 6 p.m. Furthermore, statistics based on violent crimes reported to law enforcement showed that juveniles were 140% also more likely to be victimized between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. on school days (Sickmund & Snyder, 2006).
Critics of teen curfews have also voiced the suspicion that these laws are enforced in an arbitrary and discriminatory fashion, targeting youth in low income, minority neighborhoods. It is feared that if broad enforcement discretion is granted to police, they will use the curfew as a pretense to detain and question youth, particularly those of a minority race (Ford & Sutphen, 2001). Critics further argue that curfews are merely an additional charging mechanism. They say that the police often use curfew violations when there is little or no evidence of another suspected crime.
A study by Ford and Sutphen, examined the effect of a teen curfew on juvenile arrest rates during the first year of the curfew’s implementation in a city of an over 200,000 population. The curfew law was adopted in response to a reported increase in violent and juvenile crime over the previous several years. The new law was applied to all youth 17 years of age and younger during the hours from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. week nights, and from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. on weekend nights. Like many curfews across the nation there were several exceptions including youths who are: accompanied by a parent or other authorized adult; exercising first amendment rights (religion, speech, assembly); cases of reasonable necessity; standing on the sidewalk in front of their residence; returning home within an hour of a school, religious or voluntary activity; engaged in employment activity; in a motor vehicle with an authorized driver; operators or passengers of a motor vehicle in direct route to a destination within or out of the city limits; married; or homeless and using a public place as an abode. The law also contained a provision to cite the parents of youth violators. Cited parents faced a fine of up to $499. Enforcement of this provision was left to the discretion of the police officer (Ford & Sutphen, 2001).
The data collected by the researchers related to 377 curfew violations and 83 parent citations issued in 22 police beats during that first year of implementation. The results indicated that the enacted curfew had no effect on total juvenile arrests, felonies, misdemeanors, violent crimes, or property crimes. The researcher further concluded that more curfew violations were issued in areas with higher rates of juvenile arrests, higher levels of police presence, and lower family incomes. Parental citations were highest in areas with lower family income and greater proportions of African American populations (Ford & Sutphen, 2001).
Curfews are ultimately a public policy issue. As long as the public policy continues to strive to hinder juvenile crime and crimes against such use, curfews will continue to be upheld constitutional. Despite the overwhelming evidence that they do not make an impact on crime and much research suggesting discriminatory enforcement, such laws will more than likely persist. The idea that at 10:59 pm a 16 year old is just a kid but at 11:00 p.m. he is a criminal is a controversial one. We’ll just have to wait and see what “time” will tell!
Reference:
- Budd, J.C. (1999). Juvenile curfews: The rights of minors vs. the rhetoric of public safety. Human Rights, 26(4), 22-24. Ford, J. & Sutphen, R.D. (2001). The effectiveness and enforcement of a teen curfew law. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 28(1), 55-78. Juvenile curfews and the major confusion over minor rights (2005). Harvard Law Review, 118(7), 2400-2421. O’Neil, M.L. (2002). Youth curfews in the United States: The creation of public spheres for some young people. Journal of Youth Studies, 5(1), 49-67. Sickmund, M. & Snyder, H.N. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims: 2006 national report. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Washington DC.
