Juvenile Curfew

The policy The proposed juvenile curfew ordinance in Fayetteville, North Carolina, aims to restrict the movement of minors during specific hours. 16-year-olds would be prohibited from being outside their homes between 11:00 PM and 6:00 AM. Those aged 16 and 17 would face similar restrictions, with varying hours on weekdays and weekends. Suspended students would not be allowed to leave their homes during school hours. Violations could result in juvenile delinquency hearings for minors and misdemeanor charges and fines for their parents or guardians. However, exceptions are made for those accompanied by guardians, emergencies, and where the police chief grants permits. The primary objective is to curb juvenile crime rates, particularly gun violence. Juvenile law is one of the best strategy to handle juvenile crimes (Adams, 2020). Juvenile curfew laws have a long history in the United States; in 1990-1995 146 of 200 cities in America had enacted curfew laws, and 80% of 347 cities with a population of over 30000 had youth curfew (Kline, 2011). Different cities have allocated budgets to deal with juvenile cases; for example California in the year 2003-2004, spent over $25 billion (Grossman & Miller, 2015). Evaluation of the policy The criterion of effectiveness evaluates whether a policy is achieving the intended results it was implemented to achieve (Bonham, 2012). Potential issues with juvenile curfew laws related to effectiveness include the possibility that they may not actually reduce juvenile crime rates. Grossman and Miller (2015) study investigated the efficiency of juvenile curfew laws in reducing the health consequences for young people. While the sixth study found no effect, the other five found that juvenile curfew laws effectively reduced the frequency of juvenile traffic injuries and fatalities, pediatric transports, and juvenile trauma cases. Based on this, juvenile curfew laws may meet the criterion of effectiveness. However, the evidence is inconclusive, and the effectiveness may vary depending on factors such as the specific implementation and enforcement of the curfew laws. The criterion of externalities refers to the intended or unintended consequences or side effects resulting from a policy (Bonham, 2012). Juvenile curfew laws have some externalities, including increased workload on the public defender, prosecutor, and police. Others include discrimination in enforcement and overcrowding in jail. Research suggests that juvenile curfew laws can lead to significant externalities. For instance, Grossman and Miller (2015) noted that the enactment of a juvenile curfew law in one city increased the number of defendants fighting their charges in court, leading to a backlog in the court system and an overwhelming caseload for public defenders (Grossman & Miller, 2015). Police officers also reportedly became reluctant to make DUI arrests due to the increased workload and difficulty in obtaining convictions. It appears that juvenile curfew laws may fail to meet the criterion of externalities, as the negative side effects and unintended consequences can be substantial and potentially undermine the effectiveness of the policy. The criterion of theory evaluates whether a policy is consistent with the underlying theory on which it is based and whether that theory is valid (Bonham, 2012). Juvenile curfew laws are typically based on the theory of deterrence, which suggests that swift, certain, and sufficiently painful punishment will discourage certain behaviors. Potential issues arise in consistently implementing graduated sanctions and ensuring swiftness and certainty of punishment, as highlighted by the jurisdiction's challenges in adhering to JABG guidelines requiring sanctioning every probation violation. Urban research show that while the curfew-check program aimed to implement deterrence theory through graduated sanctions, its effectiveness was mixed. The jurisdic...