Download Ten arguments against youth curfews

TEN ARGUMENTS
against youth curfews
• enforcement (e.g., rigorous and
systematic police intervention,
discretionary use with regard to
particular locations and target
groups).
Why youth curfews should not
be imposed
Youth curfews are neither fair nor
effective and will certainly not reduce
crime. Some of the reasons why
curfews should not be imposed are
briefly summarised here.
1 unnecessarily
Youth curfews arbitrarily and
discriminate against
Do youth curfews work? Are they fair? Are they really the way
forward for youth policy? Will they reduce crime? ROB WHITE,
who lectures in Criminology at the University of Melbourne,
believes the broad answer to these questions is "no". In this
discussion opener he puts the case against youth curfews.
OUTH CURFEWS are big news
today. In Queensland the
proposed
introduction
of
curfews is meant to keep children out
of the hands of paedophiles, in New
South Wales the intention is to keep
young people out of the shopping
centres and malls, and in Hobart the
aim is to keep them off the street.
Youth curfews have become highly
popular among politicians in recent
months, and while none of these
proposals has yet been adopted, in
many quarters curfews are being
touted as the "next best thing" in
youth crime prevention and in
protecting young people from various
kinds of victimisation.
Youth curfews can be incredibly
intrusive on young people's lives.
They have tended to be based on either
paternalistic notions of "protecting the
child" (from usually unspecified
harm) and/or on exaggerated ideas of
"youth criminality" (which demand
draconian measures). The idea of a
youth curfew is premised on the
Y
28
denial of rights and, in particular, the
denial of freedom of movement.
Furthermore, while curfews may
already exist in relation to selected
individuals (for instance, in cases of
court-sanctioned conditions of bail),
various political leaders are presently
discussing the imposition of blanket
restrictions which would cut across
the whole youth population.
There is considerable variation in the
nature of existing or proposed youth
curfews here and overseas, especially
in the United States. The use of
curfews varies according to criteria
such as:
• age (e.g., under 18, under 16, under
• primary rationale (e.g., protection
of children, dealing with youth
crime);
• implementation (e.g., relying solely
on fines and court orders, linked to
youth social and community
programs); and
young people on the basis of their
age.
This discrimination goes against the
idea of youth rights and, in particular,
the basic provisions contained in the
United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child which state that
young people should have freedom of
association and movement. There is
nothing more intrinsically "criminal"
about being a young person than there
is about being an older person:
teenagers do not constitute the largest
category of serious offenders. It is
people between the ages of 19 and 30
who are much more likely to be
engaged in serious crime and more
harmful types of conduct. And it is
corporate, not teenage, crime which
costs the community the most in financial and human terms.
Youth curfews criminalise non2 criminal
behaviour.
Youth curfews create new categories of
"status offences" for activity and
behaviour which otherwise would be
deemed as legal. This means that
young people are penalised for doing
something which is neither antisocial
nor criminal, but which is part of
everyday life. The police have better
things to do with their resources and
time than to police behaviour which,
at worst, is related to welfare issues
such as homelessness or child abuse issues requiring interventions on
behalf of the child, not penalisation of
the child.
10);
• hours of operation (e.g., midnight
to 5 am, 10.30 pm to 6.30 am,
daytime curfews during school
hours);
• location (e.g., self-contained local
government areas such as country
towns, local council areas within a
metropolitan area, city wide or
statewide curfews);
Youth Studies Australia
Vo1.15 No.4
Youth Studies Australia
3 likelihood
Youth curfews will increase the 6 Youth curfews do not have much
to do with existing patterns of
of some young people
being drawn even further into the
criminal justice net.
Being apprehended by police for
breach of curfew, particularly on
multiple occasions, may mean that
some young people will unnecessarily
come under the gaze of the legal
system for no reason other than being
in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Familiarity with certain young people,
through apprehension under curfew
legislation, may open the door to a
form of "netwidening" in which the
police escalate their intervention (via
charging the young people) based
upon their perceptions of the "bad"
character of the young curfew violator.
youth crime.
There is little evidence that curfews
affect youth crime rates in any significant way. Most youth crime takes
place during the daytime, or at the
least outside of the hours usually put
forward for curfew purposes. Furthermore, many of the key sites for the
commission of youth-related crimes
(e.g., shopstealing) do not stay open
during the youth curfew periods. At
any rate, regardless of "moral panics"
and media talk of youth crime waves,
the bulk of youth offending is trivial
and episodic in nature, and thus
hardly worthy of such big stick
measures.
4
7 toYouthdo curfews
do not have much
with existing patterns of
Youth curfews are invariably
applied in a discriminatory fashion.
There is ample evidence to show that
street policing is overwhelmingly
directed at the least powerful and most
vulnerable social groups in society.
This kind of intervention will impact
in a particularly negative way on
homeless young people, the unemployed, indigenous young people and
ethnic minority young people. It will
increase the already high level of
street-based contact between the
police and these young people.
5 conflicts
Youth curfews will increase the
between young people
and the police.
Extending the scOpe of police intervention into young people's affairs in
this way will only serve to make worse
the existing antagonisms and disrespect already apparent in the
relationship between police and young
people. The control agenda underlying
youth curfews does not allow much
leeway for the development of a
constructive non-coercive relationship. Harassment involving namechecks and use of move-on powers
will thus be supplemented by
measures which add further to young
people's feelings of being unfairly
treated and targeted by police.
December 1996
youth victimisation.
Most of the victimisation of young
people takes place during the daytime,
or within the context of the family
home. A youth curfew may in fact
work against those young people who
seek refuge from family-related
violence by getting out on to the
streets. Furthermore, dealing with
victimisation by placing curfews on
the potential victims is manifestly
unjust. Supportive rather than coercive intervention is what is required in
such cases. Alternatively, if we were to
accept that the liberty of potential
perpetrators ought to be curtailed, then
this would require that all young men
under the age of 30, be subject to
curfews.
8 account
Youth curfews do not take into
different family and
parenting contexts.
The concept of childhood varies
greatly according to cultural and class
norms, and these often involve quite
different degrees and types of adult
supervision and parental control over
children. Youth curfews may indirectly penalise some social groups due
to differences in parenting practices
relative to the mainstream middleclass ideal. In addition, differences in
29
social and economic resources at the
household level can also impact upon
the capacity of some parents to regulate their offsprings' behaviour even
where this is deemed to be desirable or
warranted.
9 Youth curfews are premised on the
idea of young people as threats to
the community, not as valued
members of the community.
Young people are among the most
marginalised sections of the population, and such policies only further
entrench feelings of alienation and
social exclusion. The political
processes and media images accompanying the imposition of youth curfews
are inevitably steeped in negative
stereotypes of young people. Rather
than being treated as outsiders and
"the enemy", young people need to be
presented as integral and valued
members of society and this includes
having their basic rights and identities
respected.
10 coercive;
Youth curfews are negative and
however, much more
postive and developmental ways
of engaging with young people
are possible.
Youth curfews open the door to the
criminalisation of young people, the
active resistance of young people
through hide and seek games with the
police, and the penalisation of young
victims who use the streets to escape
abuse and violence at home.
However, alternative forms of intervention are much more constructive.
These can range from employment of
youth and community workers to
assist street-present young people
(particularly those who have been
subjected to abuse of some kind),
through to negotiations involving
young people (and local councils,
shopping centre managers, developers) over how and when different
public spaces can be used in a way
which best meets the young people's
needs.
30
Curfew proposals
At risk youth particiDation in
In Queensland recently, the State Government proposed a midnight to 5 am
curfew for young people aged 13 and under. The Police Minister announced
that the proposed curfew would protect children from paedophiles and that
any child picked up would be placed in the Safe House network. However,
members of the 16,000 strong, volunteer-based Safety House system threatened to resign if the network was to be used in this way. Public concern was
also expressed over the appropriateness of police taking on a "parenting"
role, and how this fits into their overall crime-fighting function.
SPORT & RECREATION
In New South Wales, representatives of the Retail Traders Association and
the Local Government Association recently lent their support to some kind
of control being placed over young people in shopping centres, including
the use of curfews. This was in response to news of the introduction of a
curfew for people under 10 years of age in America's biggest shopping mall.
The major business and local government groups expressed concern over
the "intimidating" presence of young people in shopping centres. Young
people were basically presented as anti-social, criminal and as members of
gangs. The problem was generally presented as being entirely that of the
young people themselves, and as a consequence, it was felt that they should
be made fully accountable for their actions.
Being physically active and taking part
in sport and recreational activities are
commonly acknowledged as essential
to health and well-being, especially
during youth. The life circumstances of
young people "at risk", however, often
present barriers to the participation of
this group in the very activities that
would be of benefit to them. This
report of a Perth study confirms the
deficit at risk young people experience
in sport and recreational activity and
suggests some ways of overcoming
this disadvantage.
In 1990 in Port Augusta, South Australia, a local referendum was held
which recorded a vote in favour of a 10 pm curfew for children under the
age of 16. At the time it was claimed that the proposal had racial overtones
and, in particular, that it would predominantly affect the town's Aboriginal
children and their families. In addition, it was reported that the State
Government would have to pass legislation to give legal status to the curfew
- insofar as special legislation was needed to take away an existing common
law right possessed by all people (namely, the right to move freely around
the community).
A major 1996 United States report on violent offending pointed out that
crimes will be committed by those young people who simply ignore the
curfew. It was commented that curfews have little impact on some crimes
and may even increase the incidence of crimes such as those committed in
the home against family members. Furthermore, it was found that a greater
proportion of all violent juvenile crime occurs between 2 pm and 6 pm on
those days when school is in session than occurs during an entire year's
curfew period. The frequency of violent juvenile crime is also about four
times greater in the after-school period than during curfew hours.
Curfews are not solutions
Youth curfews are a politician's dream,
as they appear to provide simple easy
solutions to issues relating to youth
behaviour and the fear of crime. For
young people, however, they can be a
nightmare, and they send a message
that youth are not to be trusted. Youth
curfews impose restrictions on young
people and particular types of responsibilities on parents, which in many
cases are unnecessary and counterproductive to both youth development
and healthy familial relationships.
Youth curfews may be big news for
politicians, but ultimately they are
bad news for the young and their
parents.
Youth Studies Australia
Vo1.15 No.4
by Allan Colthart
OW TO ASSIST "at risk" young people and divert
them from antisocial or criminal activity is an
increasingly debated question in most Western societies. According to Watkins (Western Australian Legislative
Assembly 1992, pp.11-12), "a young person is placed 'at
risk' if their life circumstances threaten physical, psychological or emotional well-being and preclude or limit the
H
Youth Studies Australia
December 1996
normative developmental experiences necessary to achieve
healthy adult functioning". Watkins regards the major categories of risk factors to be: failure to complete Year 10;
unemployment or being in marginal or insecure employment; engagement in behaviour likely to bring one into the
criminal justice system; engagement in unsafe health practices; and being subject to a family environment which fails
31