by Ammie Hague

Created on: November 13, 2008

In order to effectively address curfews and crime rates, it must be considered first what the actual trend rates of juvenile crime (positive or negative) are and then what observable factors are know to impact that rate. Based on the information presented below I would hold that curfew laws are ineffective in their claims of teen-age crime reduction.

Law enforcement agencies widely proclaim that they observe' a decline in crime when curfew laws are in effect but there is very little statistical data to support this conjecture. In direct contrast however, a 1994 Gallop pole indicated that public perception considers approximately 43% of crime as being committed by youths, the actual number is more around 13%. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /

>

It is important to recognize that the perception of the problem is disproportionate to the actuality. This misconception that the source of crime can be attributed to youths directly skews the subsequent notion that because there is a curfew law, the crime is reduced.

In 1992, the city of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />San Francisco dismantled their curfew law. Between the following years of 1993 1997, there was a measurable decrease in crime to the tune of: 50% decline in juvenile murders, 36% decline in property crimes and a 41% decline in violent crimes.

Further still, in 1998 the Bureau of Justice Statistics released information declaring that the youth crime rate was the lowest it had been in decades. Since the early 1990's the US Department of Justice has consistently released statistics demonstrating that the rate of juvenile crime has dramatically declined.

In a 1999 NLC (National League of Cities) study, of 338 cities with curfews, only twenty-six percent reported reductions in violent crime. That leaves 74% of cities either sustaining their crime rate, or having an increase whilst a curfew is in place. Of the same group of cities, only forty-three percent reported reductions in gang activity' which in and of itself is not a crime.

A 1996 a CS & CPC (Community Safety and Crime Prevention Council) study identified the three primary causes of crime as 1) economic factors and/or poverty, 2) social environment 3) family structures. It stands to reason that measures which address the actual sources of crime will be effective in preventing it from happening; curfews are not documented as one of measures.

The FBI published

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>