Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99
News Opinion Editorial

Be home by 9 [Editorial]

City Councilman Brandon Scott had the right idea this week when he said the bill he is sponsoring to toughen up the city's curfew law to require children under 14 to be indoors year-round by 9 p.m. is not about arresting kids or cutting crime rates. It's about keeping the city's young people safe, and that can't happen if they are allowed to wander the streets late at night.

It's really the parents' responsibility to make sure their children are where they're supposed to be at all times, especially after dark. But when parents don't do their job the city needs to step in, if only to protect vulnerable youngsters from getting into situations where they could suffer serious harm.

Baltimore has had some form of youth curfew for years; currently the law allows youngsters under the age of 17 to stay out until 11 p.m. on weekends and until midnight on weekends. But Councilman Scott argues that's still too late for many younger teens and pre-teens, who may lack the experience and judgment to avoid risky choices and behaviors that put them in jeopardy.

Civil liberties advocates have criticized the proposed tightening of the curfew law on the grounds that it could result in more young people becoming entangled in the juvenile justice system. Meanwhile, the city's police union worries that officers will have to take on additional responsibilities for rounding up curfew violators, leaving them less time to pursue more serious crimes. Such concerns have been raised before, but there's little evidence to support either claim; since the current curfew law was enacted there's been no noticeable spike in juvenile arrests nor has there been a more general rise in crime that would bear out those dire predictions.

On the contrary, experience has shown that the law has merely facilitated authorities' efforts to engage the parents of youth who break curfew in less formal environment than a courtroom setting and to offer them services to correct whatever problems led to their kids being out late. Most children found on the street after curfew are not plotting to commit a crime; the more likely reason for their presence outdoors is that they are fleeing unstable, neglectful or abusive home environments or are from families that are experiencing homelessness.

Picking such children up and identifying them to social workers is the first line of defense against allowing them to develop even more serious problems, and it is an opportunity to help parents set reasonable limits on their comings and goings. Of the 500 or so youngsters brought to the city's curfew center last summer, only a few dozen were returned there for subsequent curfew violations, which suggests the center's counseling and other services were having the desired effect.

Nor is the main benefit of a curfew a reduction in youth crime. That's because most juvenile offenses occur during the daylight hours just after school lets out. If kids are going to get into trouble, that's usually when the risk of their doing so is greatest, and police already are accustomed to dealing with such incidents regardless of the age of the perpetrators.

Councilman Scott's legislation by itself won't solve the problem of youngsters being on the street way past the time they should be indoors, but coupled with Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake's pledge to also expand the current summer city curfew center by creating two year-round facilities where parents can pick up their children and receive counseling, it should strengthen the city's ability to better protect vulnerable young people from harm.

Ideally, we'd like to see a long-term study of the law's effect on parental responsibility, one that perhaps also gauges improvements in kids' home environments as a result of the curfew. But until that happens the city should continue to build on the efforts it has already made to keep its children safe. Getting them off the streets late at night is surely a good place to start.

To respond to this editorial, send an email to talkback@baltimoresun.com. Please include your name and contact information.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • You don't have to go to Ferguson to protest the deaths of innocents [Letter]
    You don't have to go to Ferguson to protest the deaths of innocents [Letter]

    Regarding your report that Jamal Bryant, a Baltimore pastor, recently was arrested at a demonstration in Ferguson, Mo., the stories about the protests there are getting tiresome ("Baltimore pastor arrested at Ferguson protest," Oct. 13).

  • Low hiring standards lead to police brutality
    Low hiring standards lead to police brutality

    I've lived in and around Baltimore for all of my 73 years. My opinion on the problems with our police and fire departments lies with recruiting practices ("U.S. Dept. of Justice reveals plans to review Baltimore Police Dept.," Oct. 21). As a young man I never heard of the problems we're now...

  • Despite missteps, city police deserve the public's support
    Despite missteps, city police deserve the public's support

    If there were ever a time for residents of Baltimore City to support their police force it's now ("U.S. Dept. of Justice reveals plans to review Baltimore Police Dept," Oct. 20).

  • Unaccountable police are a threat to democracy
    Unaccountable police are a threat to democracy

    If City Solicitor George Nilson is correct in saying that the City Council can't issue a legal requirement that the police conduct themselves in a certain way, the BCPD would represent a private armed force accountable only to the mayor ("City solicitor calls police body camera bill 'illegal,'"...

  • Don't throw money at body cameras
    Don't throw money at body cameras

    Before running off and spending money on body cameras for Baltimore police officers ("City Council panel pushes ahead on body cameras bill," Oct. 29), anyone with any authority who is so convinced that cameras are the answer to police misconduct should read a recent study published this year by...

  • Study shows body cameras can work
    Study shows body cameras can work

    Letter writer Jim Giza plays down the value of body cameras, but the U.S. Department of Justice site to which he refers readers clearly does not ("Don't throw money at body cameras," Oct. 31). In September, the agency published a review, "Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations...

Comments
Loading