Photos
County Executive Isiah Leggett said Tuesday that a decision to impose a curfew on teenagers is too complex to rely on studies conducted in other jurisdictions.
"Any study you bring to me, I could debunk it," Leggett said, because variables like population density, income and geography vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
But a key opponent to the curfew, Councilmember Phil Andrews, called on a "data-driven, evidence-based" approach to fighting juvenile crime. Andrews (D-Dist. 3) chairs the Montgomery County Council's Public Safety Committee, which begins work on Leggett's curfew proposal this week.
After a July gang fight in Silver Spring, Leggett proposed a curfew of 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and midnight Friday and Saturday.
The group Stand Up to the Montgomery County Curfew agrees with Andrews, and its website is full of studies that show curfews are not effective in reducing crime.
"It's a big, flashy move that might make people feel better, but it won't do anything to reduce crime," said Abigail Burman, 17, one of the group’s founders. "What it will do is drive a wedge between police and the teen community."
Leggett (D) met with council members before their morning meeting.
Councilmember Nancy Floreen (D-At large) suggested a new option Tuesday for putting the curfew into effect. The council could give Leggett the power to impose the curfew, to "depoliticize the process," Floreen said.
"I trust [the executive office's] judgments in that regard," Floreen said. "It's a good tool, the police feel that strongly."
"It's not going to solve everything," said Councilmember Marc Elrich (D-At large), a Public Safety Committee member. He said he is leaning in favor of the curfew, but still has questions. "It's a blunt tool."
Councilmember Craig Rice's district includes Germantown, where a group of teens conducted a late-night group theft from a convenience store last month. He shared Leggett's views of studies.
"We'd never be able to quantify so many factors and variables," said Rice (D-Dist. 2). "But the people who are the first responders, the police, strongly feel that having a curfew will make a difference."
Peter Mork
7:54 am on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
"Any study you bring to me, I could debunk it." Well, if you've made up your mind before you look at the evidence, the bar is pretty high. Way to have an open mind!
jag
12:35 pm on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
What are you talking about - this is all Leggett's idea. Thus why everyone refers to it as "Leggett's curfew."
Peter Mork
12:54 pm on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
jag: I don't understand. I am frustrated with Leggett, especially for refusing to even consider evidence that contradicts his position. What did I say that suggests that I don't think this is Leggett's baby?
jag
1:28 pm on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Apologies, I thought you were pro-curfew and upset he wasn't giving credence to studies supporting that position.
Peter Mork
1:35 pm on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
No, I'm shocked that he has the audacity to brag about how blithely he will disregard any evidence that might be presented.
AntonFisher
4:41 pm on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Peter and jag... I guess you do not mind your teenage kids being out on the streets late at night. If that is the case, then maybe you should put them on the metro and have them spend all the wee hours of the night in DC. I think you would trust your kinds anywhere they go since you are NOT concerned about them being out without adult supervision after midnight.
Peter Mork
7:49 am on Thursday, September 15, 2011
DCGuy: Exactly, it's my decision as a parent to set rules for my child. MoCo needs to butt out.
Bonnie
9:47 am on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Common sense question: has anyone done any research (public opinion or otherwise) about whether sending kids home at 11pm won't put them in more danger of getting into trouble? It seems to me these kids are out and about because there isn't much stimulation for them at home. So, why not provide them with activities in the evenings instead of sending them home to get into different kinds of trouble?
Marty
3:43 pm on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
What legal right to these minors have being out unacompanied at all, nonetheless after 11pm? How ridiculous. If these kids are in danger at home that is an unrelated issue. Let's pump more money into child protecive services. Letting these minors wander around is neglect and parents should be charged. Why are people even wasting time talking about children's rights? They have a right to be safe and protected. That's why we have laws that state the same children can't buy tobacco, alcohol, or watch adult films. What type of parent would be comfortable with their minor child being out on the streets at night after 9pm, 10pm, 11pm when they should be at home preparing for the next day of school, protected as children deserve to be? If you are concerned about the law controling your child perhaps you should think more about it controling someone elses that would harm you or yours. The curfew should be set for an earlier time as 11pm is too late. There should never have even been a debate about the 'ethics' of this. Problems were caused by some, and they created a need for enforcement and restriction.
Peter Mork
4:28 pm on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
You don't need a legal right to be in public. It's a basic human right that should only be curtailed under extreme circumstances. An analogy to tobacco or alcohol is extremely weak. Those are dangerous, addictive chemicals; staying out at night is neither intrinsically dangerous nor addictive.
Yes, there were problems, but only those miscreants should be punished. Punishing a group of people for the crimes of a select few is fundamentally unjust. I can only hope you were trying to pique our ire.
Jeannette Lemieux
10:18 am on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
I think the police have enough to do without adding 'parenting skills' to their responsibilities. I'd like to know why parents of teens allow them to stay out past 11 or 12 p.m. Teens are in school on weekdays - up at 6:15 (some earlier) if they are out past 11:00 p.m. how much sleep are they getting?
Roald Schrack
2:40 pm on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Let's really teach these kids a lesson. Repression, institutionalized antagonism, group bias -- wait that not we had in mind is it?
Marty
3:51 pm on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Roald, I see what you are getting at, but let's look at who receives unique protection under the law in all areas (children) and let's look at what group or groups are commiting the majority of harmful incidents (vandalism, crime, assault) and let's act/enforce accordingly to protect all. I'm sure the statisics can speak for themselves. That's logical. The children themselves deserve protection from their own sub-group and outside threats.
AntonFisher
4:34 pm on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Teens should be home by 9:00pm. I think 11:00pm is too late. Why would a parent allow a person under 18 to be on the street after 11:00pm? A parent who allows that and does not care about the safety of their child should not be parenting!!!
Peter Mork
7:52 am on Thursday, September 15, 2011
Wow! So, seventeen year olds should never go to the movies or other social events that let out after 9 p.m.? Part of growing up is learning to make your own decisions. Locking a child in the basement until they turn 18 is not a recipe for raising responsible, mature adults.
So, go ahead and convince protective services that I'm unfit to be a parent, but in the meantime, keep these excessive and ineffectual laws off the books.
Theresa Defino
5:02 pm on Wednesday, September 14, 2011
@Marty--Teens do not commit crimes in the time period that the curfew would cover. Their crimes are during the day. This is not about teen-on-teen crime.
See here for more info:
http://www.youthrights.org/curfewfaq.php
@DC guy--You're right--it should be up to the parents to decide when the child comes home, not the police.