Gabrielle Aberson

Control and Restriction: A Historical Overview of Juvenile Curfews

Gabrielle Aberson

CAS HI 303

Professor Blower

Introduction

The curfew is an old, familiar phenomenon. Throughout childhood and adolescence, individuals have gotten fairly familiar with parental curfews, as they continuously remain unpopular among the individuals they affect. History has shown the United States' various efforts to protect and control the youth. Starting at a young age, kids in the United States do not have independence; there was a time when teenagers explored cities, roamed the streets, and created chaos (1). Now, there is a sense of fear within society, which translates into the narrative of “we need to protect them” regarding monitoring and restricting teenagers. The historical research discussed in this paper shows that this narrative is protecting society from teenagers and in turn, has impacted juvenile freedom. Curfew laws have not changed much since the 19th and 20th centuries, and districts continue implementing laws limiting the freedoms and opportunities available to young people. The evolution of the curfew reveals how government-imposed curfew laws have been established to protect society from juvenile delinquency while intersecting with parental control of their teenagers’ rights, but have limited the freedoms available to teenagers.

In Scream, the town of Woodsboro enforced a curfew to protect high schoolers from a killer on the loose, and Figure 1 shows a clip of the house party that these teenagers decide to throw. When this movie came out in 1996 it was trendy and encouraged an unregulated kind of behavior among its intended audience, which was primarily teenagers. For those who saw Scream, it is easy to see the ineffectiveness of the curfew as these high schoolers decided to throw a party (2). History highlights the intersection between government and parental-imposed curfews, as the government has provided parents with a legal basis for restricting the freedoms of their children. Despite the controversy surrounding the curfew, it has evolved, impacted, and harmed juvenile freedom throughout history.

Figure 1. House Party Scene from Scream (2).

Purpose and Evolution of Curfew Laws

The curfew has evolved throughout history, but its purpose remains the same: to limit the freedom of juveniles by restricting time. Most recently, people have become familiar with government-imposed curfews, which aim to protect and control protestors, juveniles, and the general public during the rise of COVID-19. However, the curfew has been used throughout history. The first world war established a curfew on British ships to help them save their fuel. Similarly, during the second world war, the curfew was enforced to assist parents who were helping with war efforts, keep the public off the streets in the case of nocturnal air raids, and make New Yorkers wind down their nightlife early to “conserve fuel and manpower for the boys overseas” (3). The curfew’s first use dates back to the 14th century, as it was a way to ensure the safety of individuals; the ringing of the curfew bell was a sign for people to put out fires inside their homes at nighttime to ensure that their houses would not catch on fire (4). By medieval times, the curfew evolved and became a signal for people to come home and get rest and alerted children that their play time was over. Juvenile curfew laws were established in the late 1800s, and they restricted juveniles from being out late unless there was an emergency.

Police were able to arrest juveniles who stayed passed curfew, and families would try everything they could to make sure their kids were not getting in trouble. However, the curfew aimed at restricting the voices of young people by hiding behind the curtain of “ensuring safety” (5). Adults were able to use this government-imposed curfew to ensure the safety of themselves and their families. In the 19th century, crime rates were rising among juveniles, so the government decided to step in, instead of leaving this issue to the discretion of parents, and find a way to reduce these rates. In 1898, the New York Observer published an article about how the solution for juvenile crime was to implement a curfew for parents to enforce, which would pressure children to return home at the “ringing of the curfew bell,” which was around eight or nine o’clock. Additionally, this article argues that the government is at the foot of parents, so “nowhere can the curfew be established except at the request of parents expressed in ballots and petitions” (6). In the 19th century, the government gave power to the parents to enforce the curfew to make it “easy for kids to do right” and “hard for them to do wrong.” Through the curfew, public opinion is that people believe that the youth are being improved socially and morally; however, it is easy to see how these curfews restrict the freedoms juveniles need to experience.

The Controversy of Juvenile Curfews

The curfew controversy has divided scholars, government officials, and individuals. Along with the New York Observer, The Christian Advocate supports enforcing and establishing a juvenile curfew. In 1899, this news outlet openly supported the enforcement of the curfew as a way to control and prevent violence from occurring among juveniles. In the 19th century, some individuals believed that controlling and restricting the freedoms of juveniles made the world a safer place. According to these curfew supporters, the advantages of the curfew outweighed the disadvantages. For example, in 1899, The Christian Advocate published an article that said, “The evil training that children get by being on the streets at night is doubtless a great source of degradation and crime” (7). At this point in history, the individual cities were doing everything they could to restrict the freedoms of young people to reduce crime. However, these restrictions had to be carried out by parents with differing beliefs, which created a lot of controversies in different cities. During the same year, the court appealed, which said that these curfew ordinances are an invasion of personal privacy and are unreasonable as they demobilize important parts of life for young people. Those who opposed the curfew laws saw them as preventing juveniles from helping parents run errands, attending church at night, and experiencing the liberties of adults. In this same article from The Christian Advocate, the court said, “In our opinion, it is an undue invasion of personal liberty of the citizen…we regard this character of legislation as an attempt to usurp the paternal functions, and as unreasonable, and hold the ordinance in question as illegal and void” (8). The curfew has its pros and cons and its goal is twofold, as it aims “to prevent juvenile crime and to protect youth from victimization.” Throughout history, the curfew has been enforced to limit crime and support parents, whether they were helping with the second world war or just simply trying to find a way to control their teenager. The National Council on Crime and Delinquency’s counterargument is that the goal of the curfew “is often ineffective and unnecessarily funnels large numbers of delinquent youth into a criminal justice system already inundated with alleged offenders.” It is understandable how these efforts have been historically aimed to help kids, but there is “little or no recent empirical evidence” that shows curfew laws having a strong, positive impact on juvenile crime (9). There is something to be said about teaching teenagers a lesson about safety, but history has shown that the more you try to control them, the more likely they are to retaliate. These curfew laws have been historically ineffective in preventing crime, rather they encourage retaliation and restrict the freedoms of juveniles. The curfew restricts juveniles’ rights to roam the streets freely and violates fundamental rights. In 1978, the curfew was a topic of controversy for many courts in the United States, and juveniles were expected to be home by midnight (10). Figure 2 shows the article from The New York Times that explained how there was no data to support how the enforcement of the curfew was beneficial in reducing crimes in the 20th century. This idea of supervising juveniles connects to how during the Great Depression, the young were put into high school to help older people because unemployment was so severe and because it was a method of modern teen management. Additionally, there are trends targeting kids in the 20th century when children entered into organized play, with the creation of sand gardens, now known as playgrounds (11). Throughout history, people have used age as a justification for control, and it is no different when it comes to the curfew.

Figure 2. Article from The New York Times explaining the controversy surrounding the curfew in the United States (10).

The curfew raises the question for the public of if teenagers are more scared of them or if the public is more scared of their teenagers; this fear has helped parents and the government provide a justification for enforcing curfew laws and goes along with the idea of teen management as a means of controlling young people. In 1966, The Morning Record published a story about 200 Los Angeles teens arrested for breaking a curfew, which can be seen in Figure 3. These teens then decided that they would rebel, and they organized a protest, made posters, and swarmed the streets of “the Strip,” a street with bars and clubs. Restaurant and night clubs owners demanded this curfew because they feared the chaos and crime juveniles enacted (12). The public was scared of the fact that juveniles had free time and were roaming the streets and causing chaos.

Curfew Laws' Impact on Juvenile Freedom

Throughout history, it is clear that it is not effective to rely solely on parental rules in restricting children. Therefore, the government has decided to step in and assist parents in controlling and maintaining control among teenagers. History proves that juveniles will only rebel when told they can’t do something, and the curfew does not seem to be the most effective way to prepare teenagers to manage their time and be responsible members of society. In the 20th century, children had more power and free time, which is why in the 1980s and 1990s, parents began to implement supervised time. In 1958, there was increased concern about juvenile crime rates following World War 2; curfews were seen as an effective way for parents to manage their children while they were busy assisting with the war (13). The state of Pennsylvania published research to understand how effective the curfew is in preventing juvenile crime. This study explains the controversy surrounding the curfew but highlights how juvenile crimes are most frequent when there is a lack of parental responsibility. Therefore, the government aims to assist and support parents by providing them with a legal basis to rely on, which will help parents control their teenagers. This study supports the counterargument of how some people view curfew enforcement as a way to “promote family life” instead of a way to control juvenile freedoms. According to this study, the parents are responsible for being “the primary agents of curfew enforcement.” The study compared curfew laws among different districts in Philidelphia and found that “the districts with the heaviest rate of juvenile crime, as measured by incidence of the juvenile arrested, tended in 1957 to have higher curfew violation rates.” Additionally, there was an overall increase in curfew violations between 1955 and 1957, which is accredited to the district’s increased efforts to enforce the curfew (14). Therefore, some people hold the belief that these rates are higher because juveniles feel restricted and silenced through the strict, harsh enforcement of these curfew laws. Some believe that when someone gets told they can’t do something, it makes them want to do it even more, especially when it comes to teenagers, as reflected in the higher curfew violation rates. Society has historically tried to limit the resources and freedoms available to young people based on “chaos” and “for their safety.” However, it can be argued that these restrictions are not for the benefit of junvelines’ safety, but rather for the general public's safety.

Figure 3. Newspaper article from The Morning Record detailing 200 teens arrested during a teenage rebellion in LA (12).

History reveals how the continuous efforts to enforce juvenile curfews seem ineffective. The curfew has evolved from a bell warning people to put out their household fires to a time restriction on juveniles, forcing them to come home after a certain time. In the 1990s, the curfew was implemented as a part of the “tough of crime” era, and youth curfews flourished. Bill Clinton endorsed the idea of a curfew during his presidency, which increased its popularity. By 2009, 84% of cities with youth populations of 180,000 or more had established juvenile curfews (15). Since the 1990s, millions of teenagers have been arrested for breaking curfew laws, and there has been evidence that these arrests have a larger impact on minorities. According to The Guardian, 16% of curfew arrests were among white juveniles, while 59% were among Hispanic juveniles (16). Right now, there are more than 400 states and towns where it is illegal for juveniles to be out late at night. These curfews persist, and the only thing they do is target minorities and harm children; these juveniles can be handcuffed and even taken to police stations. It is hard to see if these curfews are effective, especially if these juveniles’ home lives are bad. Public Defender Natasha Dartigue says that “At best, curfews are an ineffective band-aid; at worst, they criminalize our most vulnerable and at-risk children...youth who are not safe in their home or lack a stable home will be subject to police and court involvement regardless of whether they are involved in any delinquent or criminal activity. Curfews serve as an entry into the school-to-prison pipeline” (17). The history of the curfew has revealed that it has only restricted juvenile development and freedom. Targeting these young individuals has been shown to do more harm than good. According to a study on the effectiveness of juvenile curfews, “public opinion is behind the use of curfews, and the basis for this support is the notion that curfews make streets safer…the weight of scientific evidence, based on ten studies, fails to support the argument that curfews reduce crime and criminal victimization” (18). Figure 4 displays a video from The National Youth Rights Association, which takes a stance on the inneffectienss of juvenile curfews. The National Youth Rights Association is not in favor of juvenile curfews as they seem to violate the civil rights of young people.

Figure 4. Video from the National Youth Rights Association opposing the curfew (19).

Conclusion

With freedom comes responsibility, and the curfew has been used to regulate and control the opportunities that young people have access to. Recently, we have seen curfews enforced to help combat the spread of a global pandemic, so its use remains present even in the 21st century. These curfew laws extend beyond limiting juvenile freedoms, as they affect families, cities, and the general population. These populations have been impacted in different ways, and it would be interesting to see if future research revealed whether or not the rise of helicopter parenting could be influenced by or related to the use of juvenile curfews. However, for the purpose of this research, it was important to limit the effect of the curfew on a specific population: juveniles. History reveals how some people support the implementation of a curfew to ensure that kids are safe, while others believe that it is ineffective and restricts juveniles’ freedoms.

ENDNOTES

Brooke Blower. "Learning to Play." Lecture, Boston University, February 2, 2023.
“Scream | 'House Party' (HD) - Courteney Cox, David Arquette | Miramax.” YouTube. YouTube, October 20, 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE0P4aV2HDU.
Gainty, Dr. Caitjan. “Curfews Have a Dark History: No Wonder People Are Resisting Them in the Pandemic.” King's College London, February 2, 2022. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/curfews-have-a-dark.
“'Curfew': A Short History and Etymology.” Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster. Accessed March 28, 2023. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/a-short-history-of-curfew#:~:text=The%20original%20use%20of%20the,their%20neighbor's%20homes%2C%20from%20accidents.
Harris, Karen. “History of the Curfew: Etymology, Brief History, and How It Involved Fire.” History Daily, June 3, 2020. https://historydaily.org/curfew-etymology-brief-history-how-involved-fire/5.
Crafts, Wilbur F. "Crimes and Curfew Chimes: WORDING OF THE ACT." New York Observer and Chronicle, April 28, 1898, 582, https://ezproxy.bu.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fmagazines%2Fcrimes-curfew-chimes%2Fdocview%2F136671134%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D9676.
"Law: Curfew Ordinances." Christian Advocate, March 23, 1899, 476, https://ezproxy.bu.edu/login?qurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.proquest.com%2Fmagazines%2Flaw%2Fdocview%2F125835721%2Fse-2%3Faccountid%3D9676.
Christian Advocate, 476.
“Curfew." Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1996. https://ojjdp.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh176/files/pubs/reform2/ch2_c.html.
Brozan, Nadine. “The Curfew: It's at the Center of a National Controversy.” The New York Times, January 6, 1978. https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/06/archives/the-curfew-its-at-center-of-a-national-controversy-why-one-village.html.
Blower, 2023
Anonymous. “More Than 200 Teens Arrested In LA Teenage Rebellion.” Google News Archive Search. The Morning Record, November 21, 1966. https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2512&dat=19661121&id=MbhIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UQENAAAAIBAJ&pg=915%2C2814927.
“Curfew." Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
H. L., and R. R. O. “Curfew Ordinances and the Control of Noctural Juvenile Crime.” The University of Pennsylvania Law Review 107, no. 1 (1958): 66–102. https://doi.org/10.2307/3310408.
Simonton, Anna, Ryan M. Moser, Nneka Ewulonu, and Daniel L. Hatcher. “Youth Curfews Feed Kids into the Criminal System. but Cities Keep Expanding Them.” The Appeal, November 23, 2022. https://theappeal.org/youth-curfews-criminalize-children/#:~:text=Youth%20curfews%20proliferated%20in%20the,protected%20children%20from%20becoming%20victims.
Root, Tik. “Life under Curfew for American Teens: 'It's Insane, No Other Country Does This'.” The Guardian, May 28, 2016. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/28/curfew-laws-san-diego.
Simonton, Anna, Ryan M. Moser, Nneka Ewulonu, and Daniel L. Hatcher. “Youth Curfews Feed Kids into the Criminal System. but Cities Keep Expanding Them.”
Adams, Kenneth. "The Effectiveness of Juvenile Curfews at Crime Prevention." The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 587, no. 1 (2003): 136-159.
National Youth Rights Association. “NYRA Opposing the DC Curfew.” YouTube video, 2:35. July 4, 2010. https://youtu.be/CqyO7oAs-5w.

About the Author

Gabby grew up in Louisville, Kentucky, where she discovered her love for animals, especially horses. She attended the same school with the same 60 kids from kindergarten to 12th grade, as did her older brother, so she wanted a change of pace for college and fell in love with Boston University. Currently, she is a senior completing her Public Relations major and Psychology minor, where she hopes to help with communications strategies for companies focused on wildlife preservation.

Page updated

Report abuse