Opinion: Curfew ≠ Care

In July, D.C. issued a preventative measure to safeguard the safety of young people after dark. Mayor Muriel Bowser’s emergency curfew prevented anyone under 18 from being outside after 11 p.m.(10 p.m. on school nights). The new measure additionally gives more power to the police in determining hot spots. The “hot spots” are areas deemed especially dangerous, making the curfew even earlier. These hotspots operate under more strict guidelines, limiting the amount of people in a group and only two verbal warnings before disciplinary actions are taken. 

After three months (during the summer), the curfew was discontinued. For years, juvenile curfews were enforced to counteract crime, but it sparks split decisions among the D.C. Council because of historical injustices it has caused, especially for minority communities. I, for one, believe removing the curfew is the correct decision, but a morally sound one. Multiple studies, from the Department of Justice and published peer reviewed research, have established that controlling teens in this capacity has not led to a decrease in crime. What it does confirm is that the American “justice” system has a lack of consideration and empathy for the impact of criminalizing the youth, introducing them to a cyclical system of incarceration. 

The appeal on the surface is understandable: you get kids off the streets, leaving them less prone to danger. But, as stated, previous studies contradict what is otherwise logical. 

What is considerably appalling is how reminiscent these curfews are of stop-and-frisk laws that terrorized minority communities. Council member Zachary Parker insists it gives police “an effective tool. view(ing) it as being proactive ” being proactive to what? Studies disproved crime, so what else would it accomplish other than labelling an oblivious teenager a suspect? There is no fine line between how much it protects vs. how much it punishes. However, historically, America has exemplified that it contributed to the latter more than anything. 

DC NTL GAURD

Photo: National Guard troops stationed in Washington, D.C.

National Guard troops stationed in Washington, D.C. Photo courtesy of Bruno Resetarits.

The sad truth is that a minority is much more likely to be deemed a suspect, especially after decades of conditioning. Under D.C.’s previous curfew stints, Black teens were 19 times more likely to be cited than White teens. The Davis Vanguard brings this up, introducing a familiar pattern: officers interpret “youthful behavior” differently based on race. What D.C. should be implementing instead of dog-whistle punitive measures are better funding initiatives to make more accessible transportation, community centers, and jobs which are proven to engage the youth and decrease crime, making amends to structural class issues.

What's at the center of the curfew is a fixation on control from the current administration, which is extremely grandstanding. Parents' love and fear of their kids and others’ actions are exploited as a measure of controlling society. However, it simply does not support them. Instead, it fails future generations, limiting some to years of systemic incarceration. 

This semblance of “safety” and “protection” does not end with measly curfews. Donald Trump and his deployment of the National Guard exemplifies this entire issue but at a scale of 10x. 

More than 2,000 National Guard troops were sent into D.C. earlier this year under the idea of “crime suppression.” Troops patrolled neighbourhoods, ICE agents tore up basic human decency through raids, all while teen arrests in the city were contributing to punishment instead of tackling the underlying problem. If those federal funds that originally go to the national guard, ICE, etc, went to creating more jobs then there could be some distinguishable change, in turn decreasing crime rates.

However, as the D.C. Council considers whether to revive a version of the curfew, it becomes clear that the focus on it being cheaper to send police to tell a teen to go home than to ensure that homes are stable and safe are tell-tale signs that it's easier to contribute to a capitalist system of exploitation rather than trying to come up with a sustainable solution.