Ellington

January 6, 2005—For the third time the Jackson City Council is considering implementing a youth curfew law. The recent curfew, which expired in August, affected kids under 18 who were driving, walking, riding or otherwise present, unsupervised, in the streets of Jackson without an adult guardian between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

It also called for all school-age youth to be in school between 8:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. If caught in violation of the curfew, the teenager is taken to the precinct of the officer that found them. At the precinct, the youth's parents are called and asked to pick them up from the precinct. Only if the parents could not be reached are the teenagers taken to the Henley-Young Youth Detention Center.

Councilman Kenneth Stokes told the JFP last summer that the curfew ordinance has been his No. 1 accomplishment. "I started the curfew when we first started having late-night shootings. It was hard because the young people thought they could be out anytime they want," he said.

In many cities, studies show, curfews are not good news. A study called the Impact of Juvenile Curfew Laws in California by the Center for Juvenile and Criminal Justice found that curfews do not significantly alter crime rates. Also the report shows that curfew laws are more often enforced and used more severely on African American and Latino kids.

Although, typically, communities of color oppose curfews due to their racist potential, in Jackson the opposition breaks the other way. Councilman Ben Allen was on record in 2003 as the only member against the curfew. "I don't support it," said Allen in a 2004 JFP interview. "The best thing about this curfew is that it is applied equally on all instances and the worst thing about this law is that it is applied equally on all instances." Allen also said that the curfew might have problems with racial profiling. "The worry about racial profiling is the reason that policemen don't stop kids without probable cause. That is just another reason I don't support it; I wouldn't have voted for it anyway," he said.

Ironically, in Jackson the loudest complaints about the curfew have come from affluent white people. Leslie Berryhill, then 17 years old, was arrested for violating the curfew law in Northeast Jackson around midnight on July 10, 2003. After being picked up for speeding on River Thames Road, Berryhill claims to have been held for two hours by the police. The recent ordinance stated that first-time offenders should not be arrested but be allowed to call their parents and taken straight home. As a result, parents Robert and Lisa Berryhill are seeking $8 million in damages in a lawsuit now in U.S. District Court. A trial is scheduled for March.

Stokes told the JFP that the curfew in Jackson was working but is only under scrutiny now because it was a white girl from an affluent family who was found violating the curfew rule.

"The first time the police arrest a rich white girl in Northeast Jackson, her parents raised so much Cain that they stop enforcing it," he said.

Sgt. Perry Martin of the Youth Division said that he has not heard of anyone saying that they felt harassed or falsely picked up based solely on their race. "We do have some kids saying 'why are you picking on me?' but we are not picking on them. We are just doing our job," he said.

There are other problems with Jackson's recent curfew ordinance. First, there are no tracking procedures set up to report the progress of the program. Martin also sees problems with the truancy part of the ordinance. "If a student is expelled from school and is found on the street, what do we do then? They can't go back to school," Martin said.

Many supporters of the curfew laws consider the truancy portion the most important part. If a child is found violating the attendance rule, he or she is immediately taken back to school. Though the curfew ordinance is expired, officers are still required to pick children up and take them back to school under state law. However, current Jackson Public Schools attendance levels are not in extreme need of improvement and are on the rise. Last year's JPS attendance rate was on average 93.7 percent, according to the JPS Web site. This average is an improvement from the previous year's percentage of 93.1.

Martin said that, in an effort to deter repeat offenders and help to keep parents accountable for their children, the curfew ordinance did contain a fine. There was no fine on the first offense. "When a violator offends for a second time, we would call the parents and fine them $25," he said. The fine was increased by another $25 on the third, fourth, fifth time and so on. The only exceptions to the curfew rule were for kids who are getting off work after curfew.

"If a teenager is working at McDonald's and they don't get off until 11 on the week day, then his parent can write a letter explaining the situation. He should keep it with him so he can show the letter to an officer, if he is pulled over," Martin said.

Previous Comments

ID

64338

Comment

Ben Allen may be against a curfew but it isn't for the reasons the JFP is against a curfew. He's against it because his rich white constituents want their rich white children to be able to come and go as they see fit in those Euro-cars and SUVs. Funny why Ben Allen doesn't take the same position on the ordinance he strongly supported stopping people from parking vehicles in their front yards. It is also a highly subjective, next to unenforceable ordinance which is a needless drain on the precious few cycles available in a patrol officer's shift. Heck, there are 3 houses within a 1.5 mile radius of Ben's Eastover palace where vehicles are parked in the front yards 24/7/365 and the ordinance hasn't stopped the practice. Ben Allen is very, very good at talking out both sides of his mouth -- simultaneously.

Author

TC Stein

Date

2005-01-06T20:13:59-06:00

ID

64339

Comment

I, too, have wondered that about Mr. Allen's motives on it. Of course, I can't speak for it. If I cared more for talk radio, perhaps I'd find the proof. ;-) It is intriguing here, though, that on the face and for whatever reasons, the curfew support is opposite of what it is in many places. Ironically, I actually agree that rich, white kids shouldn't get caught up in an ineffective net, either. But neither should poor, black kids. But I appreciate Stokes' reason for wanting the curfew as well. I believe he's sincere. Basically, on this issue, I think they're both right and they're wrong. I don't think curfews are the answer because of the potential unfairness (and proven uneffectiveness) for kids of any background.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-01-06T20:21:10-06:00

ID

64340

Comment

... can't speak for HIM, I should have said. It's also interesting to note that there isn't a big rich North Jackson outcry against a family suing for $8 million because their daughter was held by police for a couple hours after being caught violating curfew. I can't imagine the din of "lawsuit abuse" outrage that would result if a black family sued for millions of dollars for such a thing. Another sweet little irony this curfew saga.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-01-06T20:24:27-06:00

ID

64341

Comment

While I don't agree with a number of Kenneth Stokes' positions, I feel he is the most pure politician in all the metro. Completely serious. I am much more inclined to support his reasons for needing a curfew, than Ben Allen's reasons for not supporting one.

Author

TC Stein

Date

2005-01-06T20:29:45-06:00

ID

64342

Comment

Actually, I get your point. I believe you're serious. And I absolutely agree that, on this issue and others, Stokes is right up front with his motives, take them or leave them. And as much as I don't agree with everything, I respect his forthrightness. And I hate the dances some of the others do. For instance, with Allen, I've had some great, reasonable one-on-one conversations and then I've listened to him on-air, and he's a different person. I don't get it. So, I think we're agreeing, at least in part.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-01-06T20:32:21-06:00

ID

64343

Comment

As in ALL controversial issues, motives of individual political leaders are debated in a public forum by people of good cheer and usually with a passion as evidenced by the fact that they took the time to get involved by participating in blogging via ciberspace in forums such as this. The now existing curfew law began years ago. This law had clear flaws. To address these issues , particularly those of kids "skipping school" and in some instances terorizing neighborhoods, a committee was formed to implement corrections to the present "curfew ordinace". Many people from all walks of life [in our metro area] were asked to participate in a legislative effort to put teeth into the inherent shortcomings of the then "current" curfew laws by putting teeth into a new "school truancy" curfew law. This effort was lead by the Junior League of Jackson and was represented by JPD, the Sheriff's office, DHS, the Supt. of Education for both Jackson and the County, Chamber of Commerce, Board of Supervisers, Entergy, Frank Melton, Library Commission, Dept. of Corrections, Office of our Mayor, 3 representatives of the Jackson City Council, and many , many, many other VOLUNTEERS. Thirty + representatives met at the offices of the Junior League weekly for almost 2 years. Finally an agreement was crafted that WOULD WORK, which would address the issues surrounding the school trauncy issues as addressed by the school administrations in and on the committee and the social and criminal issues AS ADDRESSED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT. This work was dashed, however, as the final legislative effort would have required an change in STATE LAW, and accomplishing that impediment , we were advised, would never, EVER, happen. So we were left with what we had. The issues surrounding the Berryhill case I can not address publicly as I am in the middle of the legal issues surrounding it and have been asked and will be asked again, I am sure, to testify in this trial. All I can say is that the reasons the suit was filed [be they true or false] are the very reasons I had in trepidation in the first place, voted against it [and will forever] as long as it is as it is. Believe it or not , my reasons had nothing to do with "rich, white. kids" As to the "cars in yards", TC , call your Councilman and tell him where they are and I will send Community Improvement there and take care if it. I am the only Ben Allen in the phone book. Councilmen respond to complaints when we know of them , but I do not spend my time cruising the streets looking for violators of ordinances to report them to authorities. YOU , however, CAN sign an affadavit of complaint and I will see that our city reacts to that complaint. If this was bothering me I know that I would. When I see them I do report them , but there is one of me and 25000 of my constituents.

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2005-01-08T12:21:38-06:00

ID

64344

Comment

Thanks, Councilman Allen, for participating in this thread. Your comments certainly add another dimension to the curfew discussion, which I think is very important. Also, your point about "cars in yard" is well taken.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-01-08T12:30:26-06:00

ID

64345

Comment

Let me ask you directly, Mr. Allen: Why were you against the curfew in the first place? I know you talk about it in the comments above, but I'd love it if you'd be more specific for this discussion. You could really help us hash this thing out, without addressing the Berryhill case directly. For the record, and perhaps I said it already, I'm against curfews and zero-tolerance policies for rich, white kids and poor, black ones and all kids of whatever characterization. However, I was struck by the apparent sincerity of Stokes' motives on this issue: to give police a way to get kids off the street before they get in trouble. I just doubt that it's the right answer. I'm open to new ideas on it, though.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-01-08T12:35:34-06:00

ID

64346

Comment

Donna... Glad to... 1. I believe PARENTS, not GOVERNMENT should parent children and their whereabouts. 2.This ordinance SOUNDS good to the uninformed. It SOUNDS like police will see a minor out after hours, stop them, question them, and hold their PARENTS responsible for being out at a time GOVERNMENT thinks they should be "home". This is not the case. The Chief has said on record MANY times that they [police] would NEVER stop and question ANY person of their age no matter their location or the time of day/night unless they had "probable cause" to stop them for a non-related incident [ie:speeding in the berryhill case]. 3. What good is an "after-hours" ordinance if police cannot use common sense in enforcing it? 4. Jackson has MANY, MANY homeschoolers. If the ordinance WAS stictly enforced , they would DAILY be exposed to being "lawbreakers" and the onus of their "innocence" would rest squarely with them. 5. This is a feel good ordinance to satisfy some politico's egos. Ask the Chief how many people have been arrested for this violation during the last several years....he will tell you he doesn't know. In the VAST majority of cases involving kids out at times GOVERNMENT says they should be home, they are where they are with the knowledge of the parents [ie:work/friends/ parties/passing thru/etc]. We are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Parents should be held ACCOUNTABLE for the actions of their kids, no matter the time/place, just as they are their doberman pinchers , automobiles, trash cans, basketball goals, stereo systems, et al we do in a civilized society. 6. I SUPPORTED A TRUANCY CURFEW AS WE CRAFTED IT. A COMMON SENSE ORDINANCE TO ASSIST THE 2...YES 2...TRUANCY OFFICERS THE SCHOOL SYSTEM HAS TO TRACK THE 2000 ABSENTEES A DAY THAT OUR SYSTEM NOW SUFFERS. An "across the board" denial of civil liberties of minors who are out at a time of day the GOVERNMENT says is illegal but their PARENTS say is fine because the GOVERNMENT can't get its civil justice system to "work"is NOT the answer, in my view. 7. Lastly. The racial profiling problem. White to black, black to white, Hinds to Rankin , Rankin to Hinds....the screaming, warranted and non-warrented, real and unreal, would be incessant.

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2005-01-08T17:26:14-06:00

ID

64347

Comment

Why are you SHOUTING? This isn't SCREAM RADIO.

Author

Proud To Be Right

Date

2005-01-08T19:46:16-06:00

ID

64348

Comment

Councilman Allen, it sounds like we oppose the curfew for very similar reasons. I don't believe the government should decide when it's OK for a young person to be out and about, either. And I don't understand why this ordinance is needed if they have "probable cause" to stop them for something else. Stop them for for what they're actually doing wrong! Also, per what you say about the chief provided numbers -- frankly, I've asked the city a number of times over the last two years for detailed numbers, data, back-up research, etc., on the curfew, and I'm lucky if I get my call returned. They've never provided me a thing. And your point about racial profiling is well taken. I know you can't address it, but I feel that innuendo about reverse-racial-profiling, for lack of a better way to characterize it, is in evidence in the Berryhill case. I think that point is that when you pass a law that is inherently unfair, and catches too wide a net to catch a smaller number of troublemakers, you're setting this trap. Many people will think it's unfair, the better-off people will fight it harder, and then they will be accused of wanting special privileges even if they're right because they're standing up for their own rights. I've seen it over and over again in my study of zero-tolerance policies. They can easily be used to discriminate against certain groups, but when the "better-heeled" parents fight back, they're accused of wanting special privileges. People are pitted against each other over something that shouldn't be happening to their children in the first place. It's unnecessary government interference. But, correct me if I'm wrong, but I never hear a real discussion here over whether a curfew is really a good idea or not. Has that happened in the past before I started covering you guys? It just seems to get rubberstamped. Why aren't council members demanding detailed information on how it works, numbers, etc., before they agree to renew it? Are they? Are the media asking hard enough questions on this?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-01-08T19:55:44-06:00

ID

64349

Comment

BTW, I should mention that I feel *very* strongly about a young person's right to be innocent until proven guilty. Curfews and zero-tolerance policies take away their individual rights, and that's un-American.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2005-01-08T20:00:07-06:00

ID

64350

Comment

FYI... The officer that arrested Lisa Berryhill is white...not that that should matter.... The Councilman that is the loudest in promotion of this transparent ordinance is also the Councilman that was succesfull in getting the passage of an ordinance that is in effect today....that famous bit of outstanding legislation that "bans the sale of toy guns" by any store in Jackson...no i am NOT kidding....it is ILLEGAL to purchase a toy gun of any sort in our fair city... Ask the chief of the number of arrests concerning that puppy....sheeesh!

Author

Ben Allen

Date

2005-01-08T22:23:13-06:00