D.C. police began enforcing a longstanding youth curfew last month, restricting the nighttime activity of those under 17. Considering that in its 30-year history it has yet to be proven effective, the policy unnecessarily impedes the rights of youth.

Currently, D.C. policy allows police officers to stop and question anyone outside after hours who they believe to be under 17. It’s part of a larger effort to reduce spiking crime in areas where young people tend to congregate, reported the Washington Post. 

The policy was one of many instated around the country in the 1990s as politicians responded to increasing violence with a tough-on-crime approach. The curfew was, however, struck down in 1996 by a federal judge in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on the grounds that the city had failed to prove that the law would benefit public safety. In other words, the city couldn’t prove it actually worked.

The curfew was reinstated only three years later, but concerns remain about its efficacy. A Brookings study that analyzed the D.C. curfew between 2006 and 2012 suggested that juvenile curfews actually increase gun violence, contrary to the intent of the policy. Multiple studies have also shown that the worst time for juvenile crime is right after school, not late at night when the curfews are in place.

Crime is a mystifying problem with complex origins and few easy solutions. To a certain extent, it’s the government’s responsibility to experiment with different approaches and see what works (and what doesn’t). However, responding to those results is essential. Policy is not set in stone. On the contrary, it needs to be constantly reevaluated and weighed against costs. 

Even though we can’t vote, we’re still entitled to thoughtful, data-driven policy. We all give up rights for the common good, especially for reducing crime, but it’s unacceptable to force us to give up freedoms for nothing. •