with Auren Hoffman
May 11, 1997

TEENAGE CURFEWS How Not to Solve Crime by Auren Hoffman There's been a lot of talk about teenage curfews lately from politicians from all parties. The plan is to make minors under the age of seventeen go home after 10 pm - especially on school nights. Supporters of this scheme say crime will decrease and kids should be home by 10 pm anyway. All this is probably true. But two questions remain: (1) is this practical? and (2) what about our liberties? "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 I was a teenager only a few years ago and curfews would have devastated my young life. 10 pm curfews? You've got to be kidding ... Even as a high school student, it was not uncommon to find me studying late at a friends place or planning a school function until the wee hours of the morning. I spent my senior year of high school traveling to debating functions, play practices, mayor's youth council events, and school board meetings. If curfews had been in place I'd probably would have watched a whole lot of TV. I suppose the idea of curfews is to put young criminals off the streets. But how do you enforce it? Police would have to check every potential suspect's identification. The police would have three options: Check the identification of every person that could be under 17 Check the identification of only "suspicious" youngsters or people matching a certain ethnic characteristic Never check any identification Reaching puberty at a late age, I could still pass for sixteen when I was a sophomore in college. Having cops stop me and ask to see some identification for no reason is not my idea of a good time. Not to mention, the action has questionable constitutionality. So stopping everyone who appears to be under the age of seventeen is impossible. We do not have enough police officers to continually stop people for no reason. The most probable police reaction to teenage curfews would be the second option: checking the identification of only "suspicious" youngsters or people matching a certain ethnic characteristic. This is reality. Police won't have time to stop everyone so they'll focus on black men in gansta uniform. "Suspicious" will mean teenagers of a certain race -- a practice sure to cause community problems. The police, of course, could disregard teenage curfew laws like they do j-walking. But then why would we even want to have the law? What is teenage curfews supposed to accomplish? Granted, crime might decrease -- but only by the same margins as our liberties. We have to pay a price for living in a free society. Loitering or partying is no crime. I agree with the politicians who say we need to declare war on crime. Crime, itself, has taken away many of our liberties because a society that lives in fear is not free. But war on crime can be won by increasing community policing, reforming education, and adequately punishing and reforming our criminals (not by saying "stay home kiddies"). We must end this dependence on the welfare state and give our children something to live for by focusing on the young. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that for every dollar of federal money that goes toward people under 25 years of age, six dollars goes toward senior citizens over the age of 65. The government has the wrong priorities.

SUMMATION Past Summations About the Author About Summation The Fans The Links

Give me your thoughts... Contact Auren

Copyright © 1995, 1996, 1997 Auren Hoffman. All Rights Reserved