[COLUMN] Curfew Laws Treat All Teens Like Criminals

Recently, my daughter wrote an advocacy paper for her government class and she chose a topic that many adults simply take for granted: juvenile curfew laws.

While she does have a libertarian streak in her, I suspect part of her advocacy for repeal of juvenile curfew laws stems from a desire to stay out later (not realizing that government's curfew law has no bearing on the curfew set for her). Still, her points are valid. It is time to end the criminalization of adolescence.

From a constitutional viewpoint, juvenile curfew laws violate the First Amendment as well as the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment. Such laws discriminate against a group based on the age of its members, treating one group, teenagers, different from another, adults.

The main purpose for adopting the 14th Amendment was to protect groups that have little or no political power. Teenagers clearly fall into that category.

I do not advocate that minors be entitled to the full and unfettered protection of rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. They only gradually come into those rights as they reach the age of majority. It is a murky area.

Clearly, parents have the right, and indeed the moral obligation, to do things for children that would violate their basic rights if they were adults. For example, parents can curtail the liberties of children and teenagers through curfews, groundings, timeouts, etc. Parents can even use reasonable corporal punishment. The decision to set a curfew for a child, to ground a child or even spank a child, is something that is rightly outside state review.

That being said, it is the responsibility of parents, not the state, to raise children and that includes determining the appropriate time for a child to be at home.

Proponents of juvenile curfew laws often cite two reasons for the necessity of such laws: crime prevention (especially gang activity) and protection of the minor. Neither of these reasons holds water.

Government can discriminate based on age provided it has a legitimate state interest and the discriminating law is rationally related to the state interest.

While the government clearly has an interest in curbing juvenile crime, curfew laws fail to advance that interest. Of the few statistically sound studies undertaken, most agree that juvenile curfew laws do little to curb juvenile crime.

In addition to violating basic constitutional guarantees, an unintended consequence of juvenile curfew laws is that arresting teenagers for acts that would not be crimes if committed by adults leads to antagonism between noncriminal teenagers and law enforcement. Besides, it is an inefficient way to deter crime, simply displacing the crime to a different time.

Even if juvenile curfew laws actually reduced crime, it still would be a hard pill to swallow. After all, we would never accept the idea of reducing adult crime by instituting an adult curfew. It is an overbroad way of attacking a problem. It is unfathomable that we restrict the movements of a whole class of citizens, teenagers, based on a few who commit crimes.

It is not the American way.

The other major argument advanced is that juvenile curfew laws protect juveniles from becoming victims of crime. Again, there is no evidence that children are less susceptible to criminal victimization with juvenile curfew laws. In fact, some studies indicate they might actually increase the possibility of victimization by bringing together in time and space motivated offenders with more suitable and less guarded targets.

While juvenile curfew laws infringe on the rights of children, they also infringe on the rights of parents to make decisions for their children without undue government interference. Family autonomy is basic to the very nature of freedom.

In the end, juvenile curfew laws make little sense. Parents ultimately know their children better than some petty bureaucrat at city hall does. While I don't pretend to know everything my daughter or her siblings do when I am not watching, like most parents, I do know their basic characters and how much freedom with which they can be trusted. I have the right to impose curfews consistent with my parental goals and their levels of maturity without the government second-guessing my decision.