Baltimore’s Juvenile Curfew: Evaluating Effectiveness

Lacey N. WallaceFirst Published January 19, 2016 Research Article

Abstract

Juvenile curfew statutes are used in hundreds of cities across the United States to prevent
juvenile offending and victimization. In spite of their popularity, there is disagreement in the
existing literature as to whether juvenile curfews are truly effective. The current study assesses
the effectiveness of a change in the juvenile curfew statutes in Baltimore, MD. Data consist of
police arrest records for the months preceding and following the curfew change. Regression
analyses address both change in arrest totals and change in the ratio of youth to adult arrests
and the ratio of arrests within curfew hours to outside of curfew hours. Results indicate an
increase in the ratio of youth to adult arrests during curfew hours. However, arrest totals were
decreasing overall at the time of the curfew change. Implications for further investigation are
discussed.

The Effect of Curfews on Political Preferences

Deniz Aksoy, Andrew Menger, Margit Tavits

Do curfews as indiscriminate counterinsurgency measures affect citizens’ political preferences?

We argue that citizens’ response to such state actions depends on their group alignment.
Citizens who are ethnically or ideologically aligned with the government are likely to interpret
state actions as serving their interests and reward the governing parties. Citizens who are
aligned with the insurgency, however, are likely to interpret these same actions as targeted.
These citizens are likely to disengage from politics because, while they have no reason to
increase their support for the governing parties, they may also be fearful of expressing political
support for the insurgent affiliated opposition parties. We find support for this argument with
individual-level survey data from Turkey. We show that, when exposed to curfews, Turks
increase their support for the governing party while Kurds do not; instead, they withdraw their
support from the Kurdish opposition party and are hesitant to express any political preferences.
Isabel Walter; Darren Sugg; Louise Moore
2015
August

Abstract: Five jurisdictions participated in the evaluation. In these jurisdictions interviews

and focus groups were conducted with practitioners from probation services, youth
offending teams, and representatives from magistrates' courts. In addition, staff from the
three electronic monitoring companies that operated in the five areas were interviewed. The
interviews focused on respondents' experiences with and views on the new sentence. The
findings showed that most criminal justice practitioners viewed curfew orders as a "top end"
community penalty, but some recognized their flexibility in terms of use and tariff.
Respondents believed curfews were particularly suitable for offending that occurred at
specific times and places, where custody was likely but inadvisable, and when other
community penalties had been breached or were unsuitable. Most respondents viewed
curfew orders as inappropriate for sex offenders, very violent offenders, and offenders
involved in domestic violence or child abuse. Practitioners favored the use of curfew orders
alongside other community penalties that could support and build on the consequences of
being "tagged." Some respondents also saw value in stand-alone curfews as a means of
punishing offenders and reducing offending opportunities. Lack of knowledge about and
confidence in the order had inhibited its use in some jurisdictions, particularly where
practitioners felt inundated by new initiatives. Bringing breaches of curfew orders has raised
both legal and practical difficulties. Also, respondents were concerned about perceived
inconsistency in courts' approach to breaches of curfew. Practitioners liked the fact that
curfew orders provided clear evidence of compliance and offered a cost-effective alternative
to prison; however, they were concerned that tagging might stigmatize offenders. Generally,
respondents viewed curfew orders as an underused sentence with considerable potential.
They recommended more interagency cooperation and sharing of information to improve
practice. 4 references.
Manila City government to revise curfew law

Rosabell C. Tolledo

 -

September 27, 2017

626

Following the Supreme Court’s (SC) decision declaring as unconstitutional Manila’s curfew ordinance for
minors, Manila Mayor Joseph E. Estrada said it is time to explore other options. Estrada added the city
government will no longer file any appeal and would simply comply with the orders.

“The Supreme Court is the highest court of the land so we have… to just follow whatever is their
decision,” the Manila mayor told reporters at the sidelines of the blessing ceremonies for the new City
Hall-funded covered quadrangle of Bacood Elementary School in Santa Mesa on Monday afternoon.

“There’s nothing we can do. It’s the highest court of the land. We have to follow. Nobody is above the
law, not even the president,” Estrada added.

Responding to a question by a reporter, he said he is not dismayed at all by the SC ruling and that the
city government will not file any appeal. “Anyway, there are other remedies available.”

One of these remedies, Estrada added, is to “revisit” the provisions of the curfew law, City Ordinance
8046, and introduce amendments that will not go against the High Tribunal’s ruling. “We can pass
another ordinance, or we’ll just amend it. It depends upon the city council,” he pointed out.

Majority floor leader Sixth District Councilor Casimiro Sison, who was with Estrada during the
inauguration ceremonies, confirmed the city council is working on a new curfew ordinance.

“We are going to revisit the ordinance. Most probably what we can do is to punish the parents instead,”
he explained, citing a provision in the old curfew ordinance that allows authorities to fine and imprison
minors caught for curfew violation, which the SC finds illegal.

The old curfew ordinance, according to Sison, was approved in 2002 during the incumbency of then-
Mayor Lito Atienza. Since last year, he said, Estrada has stopped its implementation.

In a recent deliberation, the SC has allowed curfew for minors in Quezon City but nullified those in
Manila and Navotas, which it found to be unconstitutional.

The high court agreed with the argument of the petitioner, the Samahan ng Progresibong Kabataan, that
City Ordinance 8046 of Manila and Pambansang Ordinansa 2002-2013 issued by Navotas violated the
provisions of the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act
Manila plans new curfew ordinance

Published October 7, 2017, 10:01 PM

By Analou De Vera

A new curfew ordinance that will be more lenient and less restrictive to minors will be
introduced in Manila.

The curfew ordinance draft, according to Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada, will not in any way
unnecessarily infringe on the constitutional rights of the minors and their parents or guardians
but its goal will just be the same – to protect them from crimes during nighttime.

“We are balancing the rights of the people and the government’s duty to protect them from
harm. This new (curfew) ordinance will not be as harsh as the old one, in fact it will be more
lenient, but I assure you, we will implement this strictly,” Estrada said. In August, the higher
court nullified Manila’s Ordinance No. 8046 after they agreed with the argument of the
petitioner, the Samahan ng Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK), that the said ordinance violated
the provisions of the R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act.

According to the SC, the ordinance’s provisions imposing reprimand, fine, and imprisonment on
minors contradicts the provisions of R.A. 9344.

Fifth District Councilor Ricardo “Boy” Isip, Jr., the principal author of the yet unnumbered draft
ordinance, said the proposed law has been approved during the first reading last week of
August before the council went on recess. A series of public hearings have started on Oct. 6,
2017.

Isip’s curfew legislation bans minors below 18 years old to wander or loiter in the streets and
public places during nighttime – from 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. – but its provisions are more “relaxed”
and “child-friendly,” he said.

“For one, we took out the provision that penalizes the offending minor, including putting them
to jail. This time, we will hold their parents or guardians responsible, not them,” said Isip.

“Our aim here is [to] ensure the welfare of our youth, their development, protection from
criminality,” he added.

Under Isip’s bill, minors who are apprehended for curfew violations for the first time will be
“surrendered” to the nearest barangay hall, police station, or to the government social welfare
center.

The minor’s parents or guardians will then be immediately summoned and made to sign a
notarized undertaking promising that their child or ward would not again violate curfew hours.
Both offending minor and parent will then be released within the night.For the second offense,
the parent or guardian of the apprehended minor will be fined P1,000 and/or a 48-hour
community service.

As for the third offense, a fine of P3,000 and/or 72-hour community service will be imposed.For
the fourth and succeeding offenses, a fine of P5,000 and/or six-month imprisonment and one-
day seminar on responsible parenting.Isip, however, said there are exemptions such as when
the minor is accompanied by a parent, adult, or guardian; and the minor works in nightshift or
enrolled in night classes, or engaged in educational, religious, or any other form of official
activities.

Also exempted from the curfew law are minors who were sent on an errand at night like to buy
medicines, to fetch physicians, midwives or other medical professionals, or to call police or
barangay security personnel during emergencies.

The Effectiveness of Juvenile Curfews at Crime Prevention

Kenneth AdamsFirst Published May 1, 2016 Research Article

Article has an altmetric score of 32 No Access

Abstract

Juvenile curfew laws have become a pervasive and popular strategy for controlling juvenile
crime. Public opinion is solidly behind the use of curfews, and the primary basis for this
support is the notion that curfews make streets safer. This article provides preliminary
results from a systematic review of empirical research on juvenile curfews, concluding that
the evidence does not support the argument that curfews prevent crime and victimization.
Juvenile crime and victimization are most likely to remain unchanged after implementation
of curfew laws. Other aspects of curfew research, such as efficiency at detecting criminal
activity, costs of enforcement, crime displacement, counterintuitive findings, and
characteristics of curfew violators also are discussed. Finally, suggestions for future
research are offered.

SC grants TRO vs curfew ordinances of 3 LGUs

KEITH A. CALAYAG

September 29, 2016

THE Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday has temporarily stopped the

implementation of curfew ordinances in three local governments units after a
youth group last week asked to Court to declare them unconstitutional.
The Court, in its en banc session Tuesday, granted the appeal of political
youth group Samahan ng Progresibong Kabataan (SPARK) for the Court to
issue a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that would halt the
implementation of curfew hours in Metro Manila, Quezon City and Navotas.

"The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order effective immediately and

until further orders enjoining the three local government units from
implementing and enforcing the curfew ordinances," SC spokesperson Atty.
Theodore Te said.

The Court also ordered the respondents in the case Quezon City Mayor
Herbert Bautista, Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada, and Navotas City Mayor John
Rey Tiangco "to comment on the petition within 10 days from notice."

SPARK together with their legal counsel Atty. Jesus Falcis III on Friday filed a
petition for certiorari and prohibition with application for TRO before the high
court challenging the curfew ordinances.

According to SPARK spokesperson Joanne Lim, the city ordinance that

prohibits the youth to go out at night violates the Philippine constitution
which seeks to protect the young people specifically their right not to be
deprived, unlawfully or arbitrarily, of their liberty.

"The Manila curfew ordinance is ultra vires for being contrary to Republic Act
No. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act," Lim said.

The youth group wants SC to junk particularly the Navotas ordinance No. 99-
02, as amended by Ordinance No. 2002-13 or the "Navotas Curfew
Ordinance," Manila Ordinance No. 8046 (Manila Curfew Ordinance), and
Quezon City ordinance No. SP-2301 (QC Curfew ordinance).

The said ordinances from the three municipalities prohibit youth under 18
years old to go out from between 10 pm up to 5 am.

Aside from depriving minors of the right to liberty and right to travel, Lim
said the ordinances also deprives parents of their primary right in the rearing
of the youth.

Lim also cried foul on the unjust detention of parents if their children are
apprehended during curfew hours.

Under the QC curfew ordinance, the guardian of the curfew violator will be
penalized for allowing the minor to go out during night time either knowingly
or unknowingly. It also requires parents to pay a fine of P2,000 or render
community service for 48 hours.
"As we have previously mentioned, these ordinances are implemented
without due consideration of various important factors such as housing
conditions of affected areas, hardships encountered in transportation and the
late shifts experienced by affected students," Lim stated.

Petitioners in the case are SPARK members Joanne Rose Sace Lim, John John
Arvin Navarro Buenaagua, Ronel Baccutan, Mark Leo Delos Reyes and
Clarissa Joyce Villegas, a minor who will be represented by her father Julian
Villegas Jr. (Sunnex)