Citation

Bannister AJ, Carter DL, Schafer J. J. Crim. Justice 2001; 29(3): 233-240.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2001, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/S0047-2352(01)00087-3

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Advocates of juvenile curfews claim that they are useful for both minimizing victimization of young people, as well as a tool to aid in the deterrence of offenses by youthful offenders. Opponents claim that curfews have only interim, short-term effects on youth misconduct and violate the civil rights of young people. This research note reports initial data from a national survey of police agencies to determine the extent of curfew use and its perceived effects. The study found that most jurisdictions with curfews had the ordinances in effect for several years. In the vast majority of cases, they felt that curfew was an effective tool to control vandalism, graffiti, nighttime burglary, and auto theft. Those jurisdictions that did not have curfews typically reported that the nonexistence of a curfew was largely a result of political reasons, even if the police supported such an ordinance.