A Hint of Martial Law
“Something must be done to curb the violence in our city. But this curfew legislation is not the answer. . . . And young people . . . , should be entitled to the same freedoms as anyone else,” Staff Attorney, Karl A. Racine said under testimony (qtd. in Donegan 21). Legal altercations, such as Racine’s case before a District of Columbia City Council Judiciary Committee, over the city’s juvenile curfew laws are becoming increasingly common in the United States. Today, “. . . at least 500 US cities have curfews on teenage youth. . . . About 100 also have daytime curfews to keep children off the streets during school hours” (Farvo 1). Although it may incidentally appear that teen curfews obstruct juvenile crimes, there are no definitive conclusions that juvenile curfews are effective. The inefficacy of the curfews, the Constitutional costs, and the arbitrary legal assault on youth warrant the overwhelming ambivalence of teen curfew practices. Legislative teen curfew is not a pragmatic solution to curb juvenile crimes; however solutions focused on behavioral modification and intervention are promising avenues for the prevention of delinquent behaviors of juveniles.
It is coherent that communities across America have a collective fear of the hazards of nocturnal activities of juveniles; unfortunately, the costs of utilizing legislative, teen curfews for a sense of security are copious and critically grave. The idea that serious crimes committed by juveniles will decline if juveniles restricted to their homes at specific hours is erroneous; to illustrate, teens who are willing to commit a violent crime such as homicide would obviously not be deterred by a misdemeanor charge for a curfew citation. Furthermore, the curfew would inadvertently affect law-abiding teens that are not likely to commit violent crimes that curfews are intended to prevent. Therefore, the defective commitment of law enforcement resources and the arbitrarily targeting...