Curfews Keep Teenagers Out of Trouble - Coursework Example

Curfews Keep Teenagers Out of Trouble This paper aims to explain the history of curfews stemming from its original European implementation and subsequent adoption of various states in the United States. This paper will also aim to shed light on how curfews have successfully or unsuccessfully managed to keep children and teenagers out of trouble. Even more importantly, this paper shall bring to light the legal implications of a citywide curfew as opposed to a parent implemented curfew. We live in a world that continues to become more and more violent as the days progress. Although crimes affect various age groups in our society, we fear the most for the young people in our society who, due to reckless abandon caused by their youthful enthusiasm for life, tend to place themselves in precarious situations. These dangerous situations are usually connected to their love of the fun time offered by a night life. As parents who fear for the safety of their children, a curfew placed upon their childs night time activities offers a semblance of protection for both parties. The idea being that if a child is home by a certain hour of the night, he or she will be able to avoid the pitfalls that often befall the adventurous teens at night. An analysis of the history and reasons behind the implementation of parental and citywide curfews reveal the details as to why these sectors find curfews an effective deterrent when it comes to keeping their children out of trouble: the night holds some unseen circumstances that children and teenagers may not be capable of dealing with at their current age. Therefore there needs to be some sort of system in place that can help protect them from the things that go bump in the night on public streets. Since teenagers these days can be really hot headed and emotional, it is important to make sure that they are in a safe place once night time sets in because as the night deepens, tempers may end up flaring in certain situations. It is saddening to note that curfews were not needed during the past eras in the United States. The night streets were safe places for them to hang out with their friends after dinner or on a Friday night so they can relax after a hectic school week. Teenagers were not always held in the grips of curfew mania as they are today. Newspaper articles from decades gone by have shown that there was a time in our country when it was safe for teenagers to go out and party at night. Schools did not need to have metal detectors at the gates, school dances were the highlight of the school year, and teenagers would go out on a Friday night and stay out till the wee hours of the morning having the time of their lives. This era seems like a dream. A situation that existed in a far away land of imagination and wonder. Could there truly have been a time and era when it was safe for teenagers to be in the streets at night? Gathering together as friendly groups and not having to worry about being attacked by rival gangs or random strangers? The answer is that it did used to exist. But the reality for our teenagers today is that we do live in an era where metal detectors at schools are becoming a normal part of school life, a pat down has become a necessary part of school safety because of the escalating violence on school campuses. These previously mentioned violence prevention measures may work during the daytime. But at night, the safety of our kids become a different story. That is because random or gang related violence at night is a dangerous reality that could befall any teenager caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, and our teenagers need to be protected in one way or another. Concerned parents see only one solution to the problem of teenager safety at night. Imposing a curfew that makes sure that the child is home at a decent hour, long before the possibility of night street related violence occurs offers the parent some sort of peace of mind and hopefully, a cloak of protection over the child. As teenagers, they will kick, scream, and protest the existence of a curfew in their lives. Therefore, it is important for parents and teenagers alike to understand the history of curfews, its accompanying advantages and disadvantages, teenagers rights, and most importantly, the legal point of view on curfews. The research content of this paper aims to shed light on the aforementioned issues and in the end, help both parties understand why imposing a curfew on teenagers can actually help keep them out of trouble. Contrary to public belief, curfews did not originate in America. Rather, it began in the upper class society of Europe over a hundred years ago. The idea, was to provide a measure of control over the so-called “lower classes” of European society. The idea being that “crime originates from those in the lower classes, and enforcing restrictions upon them will limit the amount of crimes that they have the opportunity to commit.” (ASFAR, “Curfews”). The same principle was applied by our American forebears when they first implemented curfews in our country. The only difference being that the “lower class society is now represented by the American youth under the age of 18. According to President Benjamin Harrison, curfews are “ the most important municipal regulation for the protection of children in American homes from vices of the street” (qtd. in Favro). President Harrison made that declaration back in 1884, in support of the first youth curfew that was declared by Omaha, Nebraska 4 years earlier in 1880. One can easily understand why the president made such a declaration pertaining to the all important matter of child safety. It is practically a rule of thumb that if a child is at home, then he will be out of the way of any problems in the streets. It was, at the time, the most effective and cost efficient way of deterring teenage crime. (Favro, “Youth Curfews Popular Among American Cities But Effectiveness and Legality Are Questioned”)The teenager, by staying off the streets during certain hours of the night up until a specific time in the morning will not be enticed into any activity that might force them to commit a crime or worse, become a victim of crime. It is that sense of logic that promoted the curfew law both then and now. By 1955, Chicago had passed its own curfew law that encompassed the largest city in the country then by 1960 60 out of 110 cities with a population of over 100,000 had already enacted their own curfew laws. In a span of 30 years, another 200 cities had imposed curfews on teenagers with President Clinton also endorsing curfews in 1996 as a matter of keeping our children safe (Favro, “Youth Curfews Popular Among American Cities But Effectiveness and Legality Are Questioned”). Eventually, the trend towards imposing curfews on teenagers and children under the age of 18 had spread to even more cities. A move that finally prompted the US Conference of Mayors and National League of Cities to finally issue a uniform guideline called Best Practices for other cities intending to impose curfews in their own areas. With 337 cities imposing curfews as of the year 2000, Bob Knight, who at the time was the President of the National League of Cities as well as mayor of Wichita, Kansas explained that the imposition of curfews could be considered a necessity because it provided some sort of answer to the question of how to ensure the safety of youth in their communities. As of 2009, an estimated 500 cities across the U.S. have curfew times imposed upon their community youth under the age of 18 (Favro, “Youth Curfews Popular Among American Cities But Effectiveness and Legality Are Questioned”). We are already all too familiar with the reasons as to why curfews were first imposed upon the children of America. So the question remains, “Are curfews really effective in deterring crime committed by or committed upon teenagers?”. Is there any empirical evidence that will prove that curfews are advantageous in terms of protecting teenagers? Information collated from sources such as the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety indicate that a survey of 149 cities, of which 72 imposed curfews, the following information in support of curfews as a protective shield for teenagers came to light: ... 72 were found to have nighttime curfew ordinances applying to teenagers of various ages. The typical city curfew identified starts at midnight, ends at 5 a.m., and affects all activity of teenagers ages 13–17 in a public place and unaccompanied by a parent. In comparisons of 47 cities with curfews covering 13- to 17-year-olds and 77 cities without curfews, curfews were associated with a 23% reduction in fatal injury for 13- to 17-year-olds for the 9 p.m.–5:59 a.m. time period. This is identical to the 23% reduction estimated for both fatal and nonfatal motor vehicle injuries for 13- to 17-year-olds in an earlier, more limited study of curfews in Detroit, Cleveland, and Columbus, Ohio (Preusser, Zador, and Williams 641). The reality of the situation is that curfews were created for a reason. Be it a city wide or parent imposed curfew, the bottom line is that those in a position of authority want to see the children in their jurisdiction safe and free from harm. However, those are not the only reasons that a curfew should be imposed on teenagers and children. There are actually quite a number of positive results that can be had from the imposition of these time constraints. A curfew helps a child learn how to manage his time better. By having only a limited number of hours within a day to complete all of his tasks and activities, a teenager learns how to effectively use his time in order to get the most results out of it. Since most teenagers are also sleep deprived, imposing a curfew means that they will be home at a decent hour that will insure that they get their much needed 8 hours of sleep which will keep them focused and energized while at school. These are just some routine adult activities that they can learn early in life and eventually carry with them well into adulthood (Welsh, “Teen Scene: Why Curfews Should Be Imposed”). Teenagers tend to go about their activities with reckless abandon unless a roadblock is placed in front of them. In this case, the curfew exists to let them know when it is time to quit and go home. It is a signal that things may ultimately get too hot for them to handle alone in the darkness and it would be a good idea to retreat to the safety of ones home. In fact, having a curfew is a perfectly good excuse to get oneself out of any spiraling out of control situation. It certainly sounds a lot better than telling somebody “I gotta go, my dads in the car waiting for me”. The one thing that troubles teenagers about having a curfew is the issue of parental trust. They feel that their parents are just waiting for and expecting them to get into trouble. The teen feels that his parents dont want to allow him to grow up and mature at his own pace by making his own mistakes. They are right to a certain extent, parents can try to prevent their children from getting into trouble, but they will eventually find themselves in some sort of hot water regardless of the curfew imposed by the parents or by the city. It is precisely because of curfews that some teenagers end up in trouble in the first place. That is because they find that they have to sneak out of the house or into the house in order to avoid getting into trouble with their “untrusting” parents. Parents have to understand that there are simply times when a curfew cannot be enforced or must at least be adjusted in order to meet the requirements of the childs life. After all they are free people and not prisoners in a wall-less prison. Due to the rising number of cities in the United States that have begun imposing city wide curfews on teenager and children under the age of 18, there has been a growing concern that maybe the curfews are over publicized as the best way to protect teenagers. Maybe it doesnt really work as effectively as it should? There have been a number of studies done on the issue and the results have left parents and teenagers with mixed reactions. ASFAR (“Curfews”) reports that on August 16, 2001 71% of respondents to their survey admitted that teen curfew laws did not help to reduce crime rates. Aside from that, their further studies also showed that youth crimes were gravely misrepresented in curfew related juvenile crime arrests. But those results cover only the city wide enforced curfews. There is no empirical data that can prove or disprove that parent enforced curfews do not work on a small or large scale basis. However, information does exist as to whether teenagers are out committing crimes of any sort during a time when they should be at home as per the curfew ruling in their city. Michael Murphy (“Do Curfews Keep Teens Out of Trouble?;Murphy”) suggests that in his investigation pertaining to a law project involving criminal cases, he discovered that “often teenagers in these cases were committing crimes late at night or early morning such as 1 or 2 am”. Just like any normal human being, a teenager has an individual right to live his life the way he pleases. That is a mandate that is protected by our first amendment and the Bill of Human Rights. Why then are we enforcing city wide or parental curfews on teenagers? A curfew is tantamount to a declaration of martial rule upon a teenager. By imposing a curfew on his right to enjoy his life the way he pleases, the city or even a parent is in direct violation of his First Amendment right to speak and assemble. (ASFAR, “Curfews”). Teenagers these days cannot be led around by their parents or the city without being a good reason to follow their instructions. That is why some teenagers have taken it upon themselves to ask the courts to decide as to the legality of the existence and imposition of curfews on their particular age bracket of society. It was back in 2009 when teenagers in New York and Massachusetts decided to ask their high courts for a ruling pertaining to the legality of the curfew laws that were in effect at the time. This is because the teenager plaintiffs and their parents were involved in what they perceived to be illegal arrest situations by police officers because the teenager was out on the street beyond curfew time. The argument in this instance was that the state was trying to take over a role that is the responsibility of the parents and therefore violates the teenagers First Amendment rights (Wagner, “Teen Curfew Laws Challenged”). It is an admitted fact that teenagers do commit crimes in our community. That is why curfews were imposed in order to prevent juvenile crimes from escalating to an uncontrollable level. We know that parents openly support city wide curfews due to the constant fear and panic that they have for the safety of their children. Curfews, parents argue, make the streets safer for their kids to be in at night. But there has been evidence presented to the courts that curfews do not always work as a method of crime prevention and victimization prevention. Rather, juvenile crime rates tend to remain the same even after the curfew law has been imposed. (Adams, “The Effectiveness of Juvenile Curfews at Crime Prevention”). Rather than helping to make the streets safer for our children to be walking in at night by adding doable and workable safety measures, politicians and parents alike choose to blame the problem of teen safety on the unruliness of teenagers. Since the teenagers pose the problem for society the best solution that could be found was to control them by keeping them home instead where they can be controlled within a specific area and environment. Such moves are viewed by many as a curtailing of freedom on the part of the teenager. The creation of a dictatorial state that applies only to a certain sector of society. Which is why some parents, teenagers, and lawyers have taken to the courts in order to regain the total or partial freedom of these innocent children (Collins, Kearns 389). Setting itself up as one of the earliest precedent cases of parents and teenagers suing the city in order to restore the right of the parents to control their children and the right of their children to walk the streets, free from possible curfew violation citations, the Alaska Civil Liberties Union sued the city and the court of Anchorage, Alaska saw the logic in their complaint. The court struck down the citys curfew ordinance. This was hailed as a tremendous victory for the teenagers and parents of the Anchorage area since, as Jennifer Rudinger, executive director of the Alaska Civil Liberties Union explained: “No city council could possibly foresee every instance in which it would be good public policy to allow an exception to the curfew law,... Therefore, parents should be empowered to make these decisions since governments cannot." ( qtd. in ACLU). Most recently, those wanting to remove the curfew laws in New York and Massachusetts also filed legal proceedings against their respective cities. A decision pertaining to their plea is expected within the coming weeks (Wagner, “Teen Curfew Laws Challenged”). If one were to review the city curfew ordinances, one would definitely have to agree that there are a number of questionable laws and obvious violations o human rights within the ordinances. Some of these questionable and unlawful portions of the curfew laws include the fact the law (ASFAR, “Curfews”) violate the right to respect and privacy of teenagers. Take for example the fact the city curfew laws tend to criminalize what should otherwise be normal behavior such as hanging out with friends on a street corner and talking. Though they are not harming anyone, if they do this beyond curfew time then they are penalized for a perceived “criminal behavior”. Doing so then violates the rights of the law abiding young people since “only 6% of adolescents are responsible for two-thirds of all violent crimes committed by juveniles. (qtd. in ASFAR). More importantly, these city curfews dictate how children should be raised by their parents. It tends to deliver the message that parents have no parenting skills that the government can find acceptable when dealing with teenagers. The city government must remember that curfews are ultimately the responsibility of the parents and their children. America after all is not a police state. Let us also not forget that these laws can be applied arbitrarily simply because the teenagers do not have the right to repeal the law. Aside from being discriminatory to a particular segment of our society, the city curfew laws are in place only as a stop gap measure and do not really solve the real problems that cause youth violence. Rather it tends to divide communities and limit the rights of individuals to pursue their individual activities. Given the fact that city curfews pose a large number of legal questions that could render city curfews illegal, it would perhaps be in the best interest of all concerned to return curfews to the hands of the parents, who can truly judge the kind of curfew measures that are required by their children. After all, a curfew upon teenagers is not viewed as something bad or illegal when done by parents. The questions only arise when it is done by the city government on behalf of the parents themselves. Parenting author John Rosemond agrees that there is a working logic behind the implementation of curfews. After all, curfews for teenagers have been in place since the 1800s in the United States. However, our modern times have proven that technology and other options can actually ease the strain caused by curfews for teenagers. That is why he, along with other professionals and teenagers alike, offer that parents and teens consider curfew alternatives or adjusted curfew rulings. Rosemond explains that his experience with his own son taught him that teenagers function best in a curfew setting that they had a direct hand in drafting and implementing (Rosemond, “The Limits of Curfews”). He explains that this type of curfew worked out for the best in their case because: My wife and I didnt want to control Eric. We wanted Eric to control himself. We figured that he would not learn to control himself if we did all the controlling. When he went off to college, we did not want him feeling and acting as if hed just been released from prison By showing their son that they trusted him to keep to his self imposed curfew schedule, they also proved to the boy that the curfew was not in place to curtail his freedom but rather, give him more freedom along with a growing sense of personal responsibility. Other parents such as Craig Harris (“Considering Curfews”) explains that a gradually increasing curfew worked wonderfully for his own children since there are certain instances when missing or extending a curfew cannot be avoided due to. “... legitimate reasons for young people to be out late. They may have been to an out-of-town football game, or church event, or late showing of a movie. Some teens have to work late.”. Therefore it stands to logic that curfews need to be adjustable and evolving along with the lifestyle and needs of the teenager concerned. We should actually give teenagers more credit than we do when it comes to their way of thinking about curfews. They actually understand and appreciate having a curfew but they also view it as a mere “band-aid” solution to a larger problem. Back in 1995, Brooke Dozier, then the president of the Hill House High School Youth Board explained to the city council, who were at the time considering imposing a city wide curfew that, “... we need more programs for the youth....to take the crime out of the hearts of people and develop more respect from the community for the law and law enforcers. Then there has to be law enforcement that respects youth.” (Blackford, “Teens Propose Curfew Alternatives”). Based upon the principle of “idle minds have idle hands”, the youth council of Hill House High School at that time may have stumbled upon a good solution to the problem of youth crime. A study by James Alan Fox, dean of the College of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University explains that very few juvenile crimes actually happen after midnight. Instead, his research proved that “the prime time is from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m....About 40 percent of the crimes are when parents arent home and schools are closed and kids are on their own." (Blackford, “Teens Propose Curfew Alternatives”). Therefore, an increase in after school activities in order to keep the teenagers off the streets may be exactly what the teenagers need. That and a parent imposed curfew should be more than enough to keep them out of trouble until they reach the legal age of maturity in their state. Curfews are still a necessary evil in our world. That is because teenagers are not born with the logic and wisdom that adults gain from years of life experiences. Rather than totally removing curfews, I suggest that curfews be modified to suit todays society instead. After all, teenagers are at that age where the child si slowly turning into an adult. It is at this particular stage in their lives that they need the most guidance and trust from their parents. The guidance in helping them make their own decisions and the trust that the parents give them when it comes to knowing that they made the right decision for themselves. That is something that is best proven when the issue of a curfew comes up between the parents and child. Adjust the curfew time of the teenager depending upon the activity that is being done that evening. If he or she will be attending a game that requires them to drive to and from, then extend the curfew by a half hour in order to prevent the possibility of incurring traffic violations or an accident on the way home. Dont let the curfew be the cause of problems for either party and the teens will be more receptive of parental curfew rules. Every teenager has a cell phone. Make them use it. Have them check in at specific times as part of their curfew rule. This will teach them that curfews are part of common courtesy and is appreciated by most people who will be waiting for them to come home and are worrying about their safety. Most of all, parents and teenagers need to have an open line of communication when it comes to enforcing curfews. That way both parties will get what they want out of the parental curfew rule that is only meant to teach the child how to be responsible for himself and help them ease into the confusing and uncertain world of adulthood. Works Cited Adams, Kenneth. “The Effectiveness of Juvenile Curfews at Crime Prevention”. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. (2003). 587.1: 136-159. Web. 31 May. 2012. ASFAR. “Curfews”. asfar.org. asfar.org. n.d. Web. 30 May, 2012. Blackford, Linda. “Teens Propose Curfew Alternatives”. villagelife.org. American News Service. 1997. Web. 27 May 2012. Collins, Damian, Kearn, Robin. “Under Curfew and Under Siege? Legal Geographies of Young People”. Geoforum. 32.3(2001). 389-403. Web. 30 May 2012. Favro, Tony. “Youth Curfews Popular With American Cities But Effectiveness And Legality Are Questioned”. USA Editor. City Mayors. Society 13. 21 Jul. 2009. Web. 23 May 2012. Harris, Craig. “Considering Curfews”. Guest Columnist. Happy News. 20 Apr. 2007. Web. 26 May 2007. Murphy, Michael. “Do Curfews Keep Teens out of Trouble?; Murphy”. Teen Scene P.E.I. The Guardian. 11 Apr. 2012. Web. 24 May 2012. Presseur, David, Zador, Paul, & Williams Allan F. “The Effect of City Curfew Ordinances On Teenage Motor Vehicle Fatalities”. Accident Analysis and Prevention. 25.5 (1993): 641–645. Web. 30 May 2012. Rosemond, John. “The Limits of Curfews”. Teen Challenges. Better Homes and Gardens. 2012. Web. 25 May. 2012. Wagner, Matt. “Teen Curfew Laws Challenged”. Latest News. Youth Today. 30 Apr. 2009. Web. 30 May 2012. Welsh, Jenna. “Teen Scene: Why Curfews Should Be Enforced”. Local Blogs. GettysburgTimes.com. 8 Dec. 2010. Web. 28 May 2012. Read More