Hr3 flTk
by Jack Ryan
Art by Bernard Glochowsky
wave of teen-age violence spread
across the country last Sum
mer. Gang wars and stabbings in
New York City were a weekly occur
rence. In Chicago, a motel operator
was shot down by teen-age hoodlums
on a "crime spree."
Smaller communities did not escape.
Two rural youths were killed when
their stolen auto went out of control
during a chase by police. Wild "beer
busts" in a state park scandalized par
ents in another small town.
Yet Newark, N. J., only a few miles
from the bloody gang fights of New
York City, was seemingly bypassed by
the upsurge in juvenile delinquency.
Officials were asked why.
"We keep on top of trouble," a police
spokesman told reporters. "We enforce
a teen-age curfew that helps us stop
crime before it starts."
In Illinois, some influential people
considered curfews so hopeful they
asked the state legislature to give every
county the right to impose nighttime
restrictions on youths. Such a bill was
passed, but Gov. William Stratton
vetoed it with these words:
"I believe that the correction of the
(juvenile delinquency) situation pri
marily is the responsibility of the
parent. ... In those counties which
felt it necessary to employ (a curfew),
youth might well suffer from the sub
stitution of governmental for parental
. control."
Gov. Stiatton's veto was hailed by an
imposing list of experts on social prob
lems, law enforcement, and municipal
government. But then so was the cur
few drive by Newark police.
The argument over the merits of
teen-age curfews is endless, with both
sides even quoting statistics to prove
their point. A while back, a judge in
North Dakota, responsible for the en
actment of several local curfews, showed
that 90 percent of juvenile crimes oc
curred after 11 p.m. Meanwhile, the
juvenile court of Connecticut was re
jecting curfew proposals because it
found only 14 percent of delinquency
occurred nt night.
The differences arc not due entirely
6 Family Weekly. December I. 1957
to local conditions, either. In the same
city, convincing arguments have come
from proponents and opponents alike.
Major groups concerned with delin
quency also split on the issue. A spokes
man for the National Sheriffs' Associ
ation says, "We are of the considered
opinion that 'curfews' should be estab
lished by parents rather than by law."
Yet it was the Illinois Sheriffs' Associ
ation that backed the curfew measure
vetoed by Gov. Stratton.
Which side is right? Are curfews a
deterrent to adolescent waywardness,
as more and more communities believe?
Or do they merely aggravate youthful
rebellion instead of correcting it?
If numbers are any measure, curfews
are an answer to our delinquency
problem. Before World War II only
3,000 communities restricted youths at
night. The war caused widespread
adoption of curfews, and recent teen
age troubles have accelerated the trend.
Now, in some states, 90 percent of the
communities have curfews. o
Curfews vary as much as opinions
about them. Ages range from 14 to 20;
times from sunset to midnight. Most
laws hold parents responsible for vio
lations, calling for fines as low as $1 in
Santa Fe, N. M., to $500 and six months
in jail in Glendale, Calif. Very few
cases, however, get beyond the "repri
mand" stage.
Some curfews are unique. Philadel
phia, for example, has legislated against
proprietors of teen-age hangouts who
fail to clear out young customers after
curfew. Dickinson, N. D., punishes
parents of young night owls by pub
lishing their names and addresses in the
local newspaper.
tthe adoption of a curfew by a com
' munity follows a more recog
nizable pattern than the curfew
itself. A wave of teen-age vandalism
usually triggers the move. Indignant
citizens demand measures against young
hoodlums and, in an atmosphere border
ing on hysteria, the city council enacts
a curfew ordinance.
The city fathers realize curfews may
be unconstitutional; courts in California
and Florida have ruled so on specific
ordinances. But they can feel fairly
safe by writing "escape clauses" into
their curfews that is, sections which
permit youths to be on the streets after
curfew if accompanied by parents or
while on emergency errands.
After a curfew is legislated, the police
department enforces it rigidly for about
a month or so. Youths are rounded up
and delivered to their parents o- hold in
the district station until chagrined par
ents pick them up. There is a lecture,
some threats, and everybody goes his
way hoping for the best.
The intense police efforts reduce
juvenile crime immediately. Atlanta,
Ga., for instance, reported a 30 percent
drop in the first month of its curfew.
But usually curfew enforcement dies
with public hysteria over "our way
ward youth," and the law gathers cob
webs until the next juvenile outbreak.
Most advocates recognize that cur
fews are no more than a stopgap
measure. To be truly effective, they say,
a curfew must be supplemented with
more positive programs like increased
recreational facilities, studies into the
causes of delinquency, and special police
units trained to help, not coerce, young
people of the community.
Unfortunately, that ideal is seldom
realized. A former city manager of a
community with a curfew tells of his
experience a fairly typical one with
these words: 0
"After a series of teen-age troubles,
I proposed to the city council a program
to help juveniles adjust to their prob
lems. A curfew was part of the program
a small part. It was passed with a
minimum of discussion.
"The rest of the program, ranging
o
O