Oakland city council member Noelle Gallo, representative of District 5, is under fire for bringing back into the spotlight the controversial curfew ordinance. Similar to what has been attempted to be passed before, the curfew would decree it illegal for minors to be on Oakland's city streets between the hours of 10PM and 5AM. In a city rife with gangs and crime, one would think this sort of common-sense move would be a synch for passing. Instead, it continues to raise the ire of those unwilling to look at the situation from different perspectives.
Opponents insist that the curfew would be untenable, as it could potentially force youths back into violent home situations and over-complicate the police department's ongoing efforts to comply to court-mandated reform measures. One laughable claim by those against the curfew is that it would "criminalize" Oakland's youth, giving police the "excuse" to lock up more teens than they already are. What all of these fears fail to acknowledge is that by not implementing a curfew, they are simply allowing the same cycle of violence and destruction to repeat itself.
First of all, the people sitting on high trying to dictate what will and won't work for Oakland's youth are often nowhere near the areas of town that these children live. They don't understand the environment beyond what they see on the news and make generalizations based on what they know from growing up or the relative safety of their own neighborhoods. When these people think of kids, they think homerooms and prom nights. Were that all of Oakland's kids could be so lucky.
Travel to the crime-impacted, prostitute and drug dealer-riddled areas of the city, and it's another world entirely. It isn't uncommon to spot pre-teens wandering dark city streets late into the night, parents unseen and left exposed to any dangers that might come their way. These children fall prey to criminals on the street, many not much older than them, who lure them into gangs, drug dealing, and prostitution. This vicious cycle has been taking place in Oakland for decades now, with little signs of improvement.
That is, until someone like Gallo has the good sense to step in and want to do something about it. A curfew doesn't by virtue of its definition turn a youth into a criminal, but rather serves as a means of preventing them from becoming or getting hurt by one. What it says is, "your kids aren't safe on these streets, and run the risk of becoming a criminal or victim (or both) just by being out here late at night. Keep them home". There's absolutely no reason why a minor needs to be out wandering city streets after 10PM at night (particularly a school night). Most stores are closed after that time anyway, so it becomes even more perplexing what a child or teenager would be doing away from their home with nothing to do. The curfew makes parents be responsible for their children, demanding that these minors be under their watch and not out somewhere being put at risk.
In terms of the potential violence at home, I have trouble understanding how the curfew makes things worse. Doing nothing makes things worse, which is what Oaklanders have been doing for years now. Yes, there is the potential for pushing these kids back into a horrible environment, but in doing so you have the possibility of rooting out these problem parents and getting the kids some help. Under the curfew, there's a chance that maybe a cop pulls over next to a 13 year old and asks why they're out, and the kid confides in them what's happening at home. Without a curfew, that cop is going to keep driving. I'm not going to pretend that the best case scenario will be the result every time if this curfew is implemented, but I stand behind the fact that by continuing on as we are is not the answer. Enabling the police to confront these meandering children creates the possibility for finding out what's going on at home, as opposed to crossing our fingers and hoping that things will sort themselves out.
That anyone would suggest a curfew is some sort of underhanded attempt to root out and arrest minors, particular minority minors, is stupid and reckless. I've been alive long enough to know that there are bad cops in the world, and that there are times when people are targeted for their skin color. By that same token, I'm not a fool who uses these instances of racial profiling in some misguided attempt to paint the arrest of every minority as a hate crime. More often than not, if someone is getting busted it's because they put themselves into a situation where that would happen. The police have better things to do than seek out Johnny-never-heard-of-you-17-year-old. When Johnny is robbing someone, or dealing, or banging, that's when he becomes a problem. Sadly, in the city of Oakland, there are a lot of crooked Johnny kids.
Honestly, it's as though opponents of the curfew think these kids are out at 3AM in the morning reading Don Quixote and collecting for the Red Cross. They're not. They're either getting into trouble or making it themselves. A curfew helps prevent this. A curfew gives OPD the power to make these kids go back to their homes where, believe it or not, many of them aren't being beaten or screamed at. More often than not, these parents are neglectful and lazy, as opposed to hateful and abusive. A curfew forces absentee parents to be aware of their kids' activities and accept the burden of their responsibilities.
Gallo is one of the most active, sensible people working for the city of Oakland and I applaud his initiative. A curfew will serve to keep at-risk kids off the streets and help uncover problems that would otherwise go unaddressed. Opponents can complain all they want, but considering the ongoing crisis of youth crime that Oakland has to combat, I believe this move will be more successful than continue to do nothing. Here's hoping it gets passed.
