HOME SUPERVISION NECESSARY
TO CORRECT TEEN PROBLEM;
LONG-RANGE SOLUTION NEEDED
But earlier curfew obscures issue
By David Maril
There’s no doubt that Baltimore’s new curfew law, requiring children and teens to be off the streets by 9 p.m., is well intentioned.
The law is expected to go into effect in a couple of months after the City Council passed it and Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake signs it.
The curfew requires anyone under 14 to be indoors by 9 p.m., and teens 14-16 to be off the streets by 10 p.m. during the week and 11 p.m. on weekends.
Well-intended or not, doesn’t this legislation, among the toughest in the country, give Baltimore the feeling of being a police state? And isn’t this a rather simplistic way of addressing the complex issues of safety, crime and the overall welfare of the city’s youths?
Instituting a curfew is a pretty drastic measure that changes the whole mood and feeling of a city.
I remember, as a kid, the negative feeling when a curfew had to be instituted back in 1968 after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King and there were riots taking place in Baltimore. A curfew was certainly called for. It was a period of turmoil, anguish and severe uncertainty, and the murder of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, who was seeking the Democratic nomination for president, would soon follow in Los Angeles.
Curfews are usually a last-ditch effort to maintain order and prevent mob violence, looting and chaos in the streets. To use them as part of finding a long-term solution to urban problems is questionable and you have to wonder if local government is overreaching.
Don’t get me wrong. Even though I don’t agree with the curfews, I hope they do work and prove to have a positive impact on safety and the quality of life.
However, I wonder about the following questions: