Whether the Northbridge Curfew Should Be Extended - Essay Example

Northbridge Curfew Name Institution Introduction The increased number of under aged youth in the streets of Northbridge in Australia had raised concerns on the welfare and security of these children. Children under the age of 18 years are supposed to be taken care by their parents or guardians so that they can be given the appropriate care (Hughes & Thompson, 2009). In addition, the increased insecurity in Northbridge was associated with unruly street children who were found in the Northbridge streets after dark posing a security threat in Northbridge. It is the duty of the state government to ensure that social problems; infrastructure and welfare of children are addressed in order to ensure a good environment for human existence (Cunneen, 2007). Hence, there was the need to provide a conducive and safe environment which will enable the people in Western Australia to live and carry out their business activities without fear and insecurity. Curfews are among the measures that are used by different governments in ensuring that there is a safe environment for living and doing business. This is because curfews limit the number of individuals in the area at a particular time of the day (Wash, 2002). In northern, bridge, there was an increase in resource demanded security reasons during late hours. The youth and alcohol user were among the offenders and victims in Northbridge (Youth Affairs Council of Western Australia, 2003). This paper explores the Northbridge curfew that was introduced in Western Australia and establishes the purpose of the curfew, as well as its benefits. In addition, the report will also focus on whether the Northbridge curfew should be extended to other areas in order to achieve better security outcome. Background Information Northbridge had always been described as one area which had been faced with social problems, infrastructure, poor planning, and a number of anti-social behaviors. There have been concerns from the public on the safety of the town as a result of numerous cases reported to security department. The increased media coverage on the security issues on Northbridge suggests that Northbridge is among the areas that have a numerous underage youth after dark who contribute to unruly behaviors and increased crime (Carpenter, 2006). The increased demand for emergency issues such as ambulances and increased resources required to curb crime and insecurity in Northbridge meant that a long term solution was necessary in order to ensure security. This implies that the underlying increase in resources in Northbridge was related to social disorders, during late hours of the day and extended working hours (Government of Western Australia, 2011). In most cases the offenders and victims were alcohol users and mostly underage and youth. Underage street children in Northbridge involved themselves in petty offences such as theft, fighting, alcohol abuse and begging. Since, the youths were found to be the source of the social problems and insecurity, there was the need to introduce a curfew in order to monitor the movement and presence of the underage youth after dark (Hughes & Thompson, 2009). Purpose of Northbridge Curfew In order to provide a sustainable solution to the problems affecting the youth and the society in Northbridge, the Northbridge curfew was introduced. The Northbridge was aimed at providing a solution and response to the behaviors of their youth in the area. The youth were involved in risk behaviors such as begging, fighting, and theft. In addition, the youth in Northbridge streets involved themselves in substance abuse hence increasing the rate of crime and insecurity in the area (Walsh, 2002). Hence, the main purpose of the Northbridge curfew was to remove the offenders who were mostly the underage children and unruly youth from the streets in order to reduce the occurrence of at-risk behaviors. The aim was to make sure that young people were not caught up in offences hence keepi9ng them out of the justice system of Western Australia (Iveson, 2011). The Northbridge curfew was implemented in 2003 which stipulated that all children under 12 years should not be found alone on the Northbridge streets unless in the company of their parents or guardians after sunset. In addition, the curfew required those youth between the age of 13 and 15 years to be out of the streets after 10 pm unless under the company of parents or guardians (Youth Affairs Council of Western Australia, 2003). Legislation Basis of the Curfew The legislative basis of the Northbridge curfew was on section 41 of the Children and Community Act 2004, which gives powers to a security officer including police officers or any other person who supervises the child to forceful remove a child or any unsupervised young individual to a safer location as long as the police officer has all suitable reasons and treasonable believes that the young individual is at risk by being present at that location (Reynolds et al., 2000). In addition, the officer has all powers to remove the unsupervised young individual from the location when he or she feels that the behaviors of the individual is at risk or vulnerable under some circumstances. Hence under this legislation, the Northbridge curfew stipulated that all children and young people should be directed by security officers to leave the Northbridge area after dark or face forceful or physical removal by the police officer or any other authorized individual (Government of Western Australia, 2011). The policy defined two different categories of young people who were at risk. The first category included those children who were under 12 years and are not under the immediate care of parent or guardians and are present at entertainment precincts at night. The second category includes those children and young people who have anti-social behaviors which puts them at risk or put others at risk (Carpenter, 2006). Benefits of Northbridge Curfew According to Cunneen, (2007), the introduction of Northbridge curfew boosted economic activities for business people in the area. Three years later, there was a decrease in the number of juveniles that were roaming in the streets of Northbridge. This means that children were spending ample time with their parent hence acquiring beneficial knowledge and avoiding crimes. In addition, there was a reduction of anti-social behaviors in the streets of Northbridge since there were fewer juveniles on the streets (Cunneen, 2007). Moreover, the introduction of the curfew made the streets safer with a reduction in juvenile crimes as there were less youth in the streets. Moreover, the curfew protected the young people from becoming victims of crime hence keeping them out of the justice system. The curfew allows the state department on children affairs to implement important social values among the juveniles in Northbridge area as well as emphasizing the role of the family on the well being of the children. This implies that the curfew encouraged parental responsibility and increases the parental bonds between the children and the parent or guardians. Hence, those individual who were for the curfew argued that when young people are out of the streets after dark, they are less likely to commit crime and to become victims of crime (Reynolds et al., 2000). Criticism of the Northbridge Curfew The establishment and implementation of the Northbridge curfew were not without any criticism. The curfew was not supported by other stakeholders who felt that the Western Australia government did not consult them before implementation of the policy. In addition, service providers in the affected region claimed that they were not part of the policy implementation and development. The curfew was not successful in reducing all the anti-social behaviors (Adams, 2003). This is because there was an increase in the number of cases in which police officers were assaulted in night clubs. This implies that, the policy managed to remove juveniles from the street but was not able to curb the crimes that were observed in Northbridge. This is because statistics indicates that most of the crime that occurred in the streets was committed by adults and not young people (Mac Arthur, 2011). In addition, there was no crime that had been documented to be committed by juveniles in Northbridge which was a major crime to lead to the curfew. Moreover, there was no direct evidence to indicate that the introduction of curfews in the area could reduce the rate of crime. On the other hand, some argued that the curfew deprives the juvenile of their important human rights and liberties as per the Australian constitution since the policy could be subjected to discriminatory enforcement (Mac Arthur, 2007). Recommendations Although the Northbridge curfew was able to reduce the number of juveniles in the Northbridge Street, it was not able to reduce the number of crime cases in the region. This means that extending the curfew to other areas may not achieve the intended outcome which is crime reduction. There is a need to develop more strategies which focused on the cause of the problem and not the problem itself. This is because the curfew focused on the problems which include crime and anti-social behaviors and failed to address the cause of those crimes. Conclusion Northbridge curfew was used a control measure to reduce the level of crime in the area. Although the strategy is a better one in terms of removing juveniles from anti-social behaviors, the policy has been faulted by many who argue that it is not effective in crime reduction and can lead to discriminatory enforcement. Therefore, a multi-facet approach is required in order to address crime issues but not curfews alone. References Adams, K. (2003). The effectiveness of juvenile curfews at crime prevention. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 587(1), 136-159. Carpenter, A. (2006, December 10). Ministerial media statements: Northbridge curfew achieves reduction in juvenile anti-social behavior. Available at Government Media Office: http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Results.aspx?ItemID=127561 Cunneen, C. (2007). Juvenile justice: Youth and crime in Australia (3rd ed.). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Government of Western Australia. (2011). Department For Child Protection At Risk Youth Strategy 2011-2014. Retrieved from https://www.dcp.wa.gov.au/Resources/Documents/Policies%20and%20Frameworks/AtRiskYouthStrategy.pdf Hughes, V., & Thompson, B. (2009). Is your house in order? Re-visiting liquor licensing practices and the establishment of an entertainment precinct in Northbridge. West Australian Police. Iveson, K. (2011). Publics and the City. New York: John Wiley & Sons Mac Arthur, C. (2007). The ‘emperor’s new clothes’: The role of the Western Australian press and state government in selling the story of the Northbridge curfew. Doctoral dissertation, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia. Mac Arthur, K. (2011). Power Elites and the Politics of Spin: Why the Western Australian Press Bought the Story of the Northbridge Curfew. Saarbrucken: Lambert Academic Publishing. Reynolds, K.M., Seydlitz, R. & Jenkins, P. (2000). Do juvenile curfew laws work? A time-series analysis of the New Orleans Law. Justice Quarterly, 17(1), 205-231. Walsh, C. (2002). Curfews: No more hanging around. Youth Justice, 2(2), 70-81 Youth Affairs Council of Western Australia (YAC). (2003). The public fight for young people to be in the city. Indigenous Law Bulletin, 55. Read More