Youth curfew is the supposed quick-fix solution to youth crime.
The harbinger for this quick-fix solution came first when the city, through the Chicago Park District, announced that this summer, people younger than 18 would not be allowed into Maggie Daley Park after 6 p.m. Thursday through Sunday unless accompanied by an adult. The Park District calls this its “youth escort policy.”
The Grant Park Advisory Council instead calls this the youth exclusionary policy. In reality, it is an enhanced curfew for Maggie Daley Park. The Park District states that this is for the “comfort and safety of all visitors.” Lacking quantitative data to support such a curfew for this location, this goes against the very concept of why Maggie Daley Park exists. With rock climbing walls, a skating ribbon and miniature golf, this should be a location youths are directed to and encouraged to use for positive interactive experiences rather than being barred from entering.
Now, the next step in the use of this tactic has been initiated as some in city leadership have proposed an enhanced youth curfew for those younger than 18 starting at 8 p.m. for the entire central business district. The catalyst for this proposal is violent incidents allegedly initiated by youths. The thought apparently is that if an enhanced curfew was in effect, the offenders would not be out to commit these crimes. The secondary thought is apparently that an enhanced curfew would give the police a tool to disperse the sporadic and unruly large teen gatherings. The police would show up, announce they were going to start arresting those present for curfew violations and the crowd would quickly disperse. Seriously?
There are a number of flaws with this thought process.
First, there are numerous studies that have been conducted across the nation that clearly indicate curfew laws have no impact on crime. Some studies have indicated an adverse impact. Passing laws in a knee-jerk reactionary style without factual justification supporting the hoped-for outcome is simply bad government.
Second, expecting police to enforce this low-level ordinance violation when the Chicago Police Department is approximately 2,000 officers short is wishful thinking. CPD right now has difficulty responding to all calls for crimes in progress due to the lack of personnel. Do we really expect or want our officers to be diverted to enforce curfew violations?
Lastly, the most recent census data indicates that there are more than half a million children younger than 18 living in the city of Chicago. It would appear from media coverage that at most, 300 to 500 teenagers have been involved in the large teen gatherings that evolve into violence. Does anyone really think it is equitable to impose a curfew on more than 500,000 law-abiding children because of the actions of 300 to 500 teenagers? Does anyone really think that kids will know the boundaries of the central business district to be aware that they are in violation of the proposed curfew for this select area?
So what is the potential solution?
Lakaya Knight: To bring an end to ‘youth trends,’ the city must create mental health alternatives
The first course of action the City Council should take is enacting measures that will quickly and efficiently get the Police Department back to full staffing. City leaders can pass as many laws as they want, and it may feel like they are accomplishing something, but if a city does not have the resources to enforce those laws, they are not worth the paper they are written on.
In terms of dispersing large teen gatherings, if the belief is that the teenagers will scatter at the mere announcement of a pending curfew action, how about just using a law that is already on the books? Disorderly conduct is already defined in state statute and city ordinance, and certainly, the unruly large teen gatherings could be perceived as “alarming and disturbing” and a “breach of the peace.” If the teens would quickly disperse, as it has been argued, because of an announcement of an enhanced curfew enforcement plan, then surely they would just as quickly disperse for an announcement of disorderly conduct enforcement plan. The added plus is that this would be applicable to all in the unruly crowd and not just those younger than 18.
And finally, instead of lumping 500,000 law-abiding children into the same group as the 300 to 500 teenagers violating the law, how about holding those violating the law accountable? In addition to holding the alleged teen offenders responsible, the parents of the offending teenagers also should be held accountable. Instead of amending the curfew ordinance, amend the already existing Illinois Parental Responsibility Law by adding disorderly conduct as one of the offenses and start holding parents accountable.
Until such time that the actual teenage offenders are held accountable, along with the adults who are legally responsible for those teenagers, the perceived unacceptable behavior and negative ramifications to members of our community will persist.
Jim Wales is president of South Loop Neighbors and vice president of the Grant Park Advisory Council.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
