- Local every day in
Curfew Plan Needs Backup
As debate continues, we ought to think about what happens to kids who will be cited for these violations.
This video was taken Sept. 12, after a Silver Spring Citizens Advisory Board meeting, called by Councilmember Valerie Ervin, where the curfew proposal was discussed. Jim Zepp of the Justice Research and Statistics Association spoke about the measure. Credit Montgomery County Civil Rights Coalition (http://mococivilrights.wordpress.com/)
Videos (1)
Videos
The Montgomery County Council will be holding work sessions in its Public Safety Committee on the new curfew legislation proposed by County Executive Isiah Leggett. This may doom any hopes for speedy action by the council, but it also allows more opportunity to examine the specifics of the legislation and how it fits into the bigger picture.
The proposal itself seems to be gaining support as it moves forward, and will likely see some compromises to address concerns that have been expressed in recent weeks. The curfew would take effect from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. on weeknights and from midnight to five on weekends, and applies to youth 17 and under. Exceptions to the curfew appear to be expanding as residents have weighed in. Youth who are out late and accompanied by a parent or guardian, or returning from concerts or movies will be exempt, as would those who are on errands for their parents, on their way to or from work, or attending religious functions, school dances or sporting events.
To me, that pretty much exhausts all the reasons I can think of for a 17-year-old to be out on the street after 11 p.m. on a school night. The fines initially proposed for parents who allow their kids out late may not make the final cut (which would be too bad in my book), and other tweaks may be made, but let’s step back and look at the bigger picture for a moment. What will this curfew accomplish?
The police and most local officials feel it will help improve public safety by adding a new enforcement tool that can be used selectively when existing loitering or disturbing the peace statutes don't readily apply. Curfew laws are actually meant to be selectively enforced, and this has not led to lawsuits or created any significant legal challenges, as Councilmember Phil Andrews and other opponents have suggested. If they had, we would have seen them in Prince George’s County and the District of Columbia, which have had curfews in place for some time.
So, from an enforcement standpoint, it seems Police Chief Thomas Manger and other curfew supporters have made a pretty good case for the curfew, but is this enough? We ought to also think about what happens to kids who will be cited for these violations. Where is the action plan for follow-up and intervention by social service agencies and community groups, especially with youth who are found violating the curfew repeatedly?
Since curfew violators often come from homes — of all incomes, by the way — in which parents are either disengaged or, in worst cases, unsafe for kids to be around, this new law will be impacting many truly at-risk youth. The question is, what are we going to do about it? At the same time this curfew proposal is moving forward, many prevention, intervention and anti-gang initiatives are being cut from local social service budgets. Is this wise?
As this debate continues, we ought to be thinking more holistically about prevention and enforcement. One without the other leaves County police out there without the backup they need from our community to truly keep us safe.
Thanks. We'll email you the next time we update this story.
Carol Powell
9:35 am on Sunday, September 18, 2011
Penalties for being out past curfew should be applied to the youth, not to the parents. Good or bad, it's not likely the parents have "allowed" them to be out. They may need support in controlling their children but a trip into our social service morass isn't going to help. I'd suggest mandatory community service for the most egregious of offenders (backed up by the threat of weekend detention.)
Peter Mork
10:27 am on Sunday, September 18, 2011
This line: "adding a new enforcement tool that can be used selectively" is one that bothers me greatly. Selective enforcement is a recipe for criminalizing behavior based on appearance. If there's going to be a curfew (and I don't think there should be!), then it needs to be enforced across the board. Of course, that means pulling over every twenty-something to verify that said individual is at least 18.
Theresa Defino
12:34 pm on Sunday, September 18, 2011
Richard: please provide evidence for this statement:
"Since curfew violators often come from homes — of all incomes, by the way — in which parents are either disengaged or, in worst cases, unsafe for kids to be around, this new law will be impacting many truly at-risk youth."
I'd like to see statistics on who violates curfews and what their parents are like.
I can imagine reasons my children might violate such a curfew and it won't be because I fit either category.
What happens when a kid is out past 11 on what would be a "school night," yet for whatever reason, there's no school the next day?
It will be impossible to contemplate all of the possible exceptions.
I am against the curfew because I do not believe it solves the problem that gave rise to it, namely the identified--the gang problem in Silver Spring, and instead will negatively impact the rest of the non-gang member residents of Montgomery County.
Thomas Nephew
2:22 am on Monday, September 19, 2011
There absolutely should not be a curfew. Parents are or should be free to trust their children if they so choose. Kids should be free to be outside -- as far as the county is concerned -- no matter the time of night or day, until and unless they break a law. *Then* and only then should they be penalized. This, by contrast, makes everyone else pay a price forever for the misdeeds of a few in the past. Curfews and restrictions on movement are the kind of thing this country did to slaves once, and to free but powerless African Americans in the terrible days of Jim Crow. How dare this county seek to treat my child that way!
It's not our business to be saying there are only certain reasons to be free -- to choose what we want to do, when we want to do it, including being outside after midnight, "even" as a youth . It's our business to be saying there should be very, very, few, very limited reasons *not* to be free.
This is a fundamentally pernicious, wrongheaded, and panicked approach to a handful of incidents. The right answer to such incidents is almost always "don't just do something. Stand there." I've rarely been more ashamed of my elected leaders than I am of the councilmembers who are considering voting for this nitwit measure -- one that should be unconstitutional, no matter what today's atrophied respect for the Bill of Rights implies.
Will
6:30 am on Monday, September 19, 2011
Very well written. I hope this curfew is not passed. It would be an embarrassment to the county.
Bob Hydorn
8:30 am on Monday, September 19, 2011
I had the opportunity yesterday to talk with Chief Manger and found it very interesting. The Chief was saying that last year in Prince Georges County there were approximately 80 (yes 80) youth picked up under their curfew law. The numbers that are anticipated in Montgomery County are (per the Chief) likely around 20 in the 1st year. With such a low number I now wonder even more, why we need such a law at all. The Chief did respond to my comments about the use of the staffing for such issues, and that the primary work of the dept. will remain the issues that they are confronted with daily, such curfew violations will not take first priority.
Then why even have such a curfew?
Woody Brosnan
12:26 pm on Tuesday, September 20, 2011
To Mr. Nephew,
I can't believe you would seriously compare a curfew on teenagers to slavery. This is a modest effort that would allow police to deal with potential gang fights while also keeping juveniles out of places where they might be in danger. Maryland already prohibits 16 and 17-year-olds from driving after midnight, a measure proven to save lives.
Peter Mork
12:49 pm on Tuesday, September 20, 2011
I didn't think Mr. Nephew was comparing a curfew to slavery. He was noting that historically curfews were targeted at groups like slaves and African Americans. His assertion (which I didn't necessarily believe at first) is supported by the Wikipedia article on curfews: "An order by a government for certain persons to return home daily before a certain time. It can be imposed to maintain public order ... or suppress targeted groups. Curfews have long been directed at certain groups in many cities or states, such as Japanese-American university students on the West Coast of the United States during World War II, African-Americans in many towns during the time of Jim Crow laws, or people younger than a certain age (usually within a few years either side of 18) in many towns of the United States since the 1980s."