Note: This article was published in the Beacon Hill Paper, June 12, 1996.

In 1964, author Ray Bradbury wrote a short story, The Pedestrian, about a nightmare world where it was illegal to take a casual walk in the evening.

In 1996, that world is now our own. A number of Boston city councilors have proposed a curfew for the summer, one that would prohibit any child 17 and younger from being outside after midnight.

On the surface, it sounds like a great idea. If kids are safely at home, then quite obviously they won’t be on the street committing crimes. Curfews have been tested for their constitutionality and won. Several major cities, notably Dallas and New Orleans, have reported sharp drops in juvenile crime after adopting a curfew. And no less a personage than Bill Clinton has endorsed them.

Indeed, three-fourths of American cities with populations of 100,000 or more already have curfews. And some cities are reaching much further than nighttime hours. Camden, New Jersey, for example, now has a daytime and nighttime curfew that is so extensive it leaves kids only 10 hours a day that they are permitted outside.

Count me as a skeptic. Curfews on occasion may be necessary tools to reduce street crime. But is late night juvenile violence in Boston truly of such a scale that we must pass laws that in effect declare all children presumptively criminals?

It is true that crime in Dallas and New Orleans dropped after adopting a curfew. But crime has been dropping nationwide. Indeed, juvenile crime also dropped significantly in Boston during the same period, even though we do not have a curfew.

In fact, it appears that juvenile crime actually occurs not at night but rather after school, from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Thus a late-night curfew misses the mark altogether. Most police officers will tell you that they know who the troublemakers are

. Most also will tell you that they have sufficient resources at their disposal to intervene if they see potential trouble brewing. What police do not want is be put in the role of baby-sitters or parents, picking up innocent children and slapping them with a fine. Indeed, curfews may have opposite of their intended effect, wasting police resources and breeding a sense of disrespect for the law among our young.

I start from the proposition that children are not criminals and that being on the streets at night---even doing nothing---should not be regarded as a crime. Certainly I can envision times of civil unrest when a temporary curfew may be necessary. And I agree strongly with those who argue that some parents have abdicated responsibility for their children and that stern measures should be targeted towards those delinquent parents.

But most kids are decent kids. A curfew sends a message that we believe they are bad, that we believe they cannot be trusted. It’s the wrong message.