- A 2003 meta-study found that juvenile crime and victimization remains unchanged after the implementation of curfew laws, as did a 2016 study (Wilson et al., 2016).
- Five years ago, Politifact found that these curfew laws are not effective because the curfew laws presuppose that all teens are equally likely to commit a crime, i.e., it's a poorly targeted policy.
- An 18-year analysis of 21 cities in California found that the curfew laws are ineffective or worse (Males and Maccalair, 1999).
- A study that was supposed to affirm that curfew laws work inadvertently found that criminal arrests of teenagers fell more quickly across the country than they did in cities that enforce their curfew laws (Kline, 2011).
- A 2012 meta-study found that teen curfew laws do not have any positive effect on decreasing crime and increasing public safety (Adams, 2012).
- A working paper found that curfew laws actually increase gun incidents (Carr and Doleac, 2015).
As the Brookings Institution brought up in an article last year, the evidence in favor of these curfew laws is lacking. At best, there is no measurable, positive effect on juvenile crime, which means that there is no real reason to keep these laws on the book. Let's repeal these laws. If we want to address juvenile crime, let's find targeted policies that can actually lower crime rates instead of rallying around feel-good policy.