By Latrishka Thomas
The government’s recent proposal to institute a night-time curfew for juveniles under 18 has sparked a lively debate among residents.
The government plans to introduce legislation at the next parliamentary sitting that would make it unlawful for youths under 18 to be on the streets between 10pm and 5am without a parent or guardian.
However, the proposal includes provisions for exceptions, utilising a system of curfew passes for youth involved in work, education, or positive extracurricular activities. This approach aims to balance the need for crime prevention with the realities of young people’s lives and commitments.
Reactions from the community have been mixed, with some supporting the measure and others expressing scepticism about its effectiveness.
In response to an Observer Facebook post soliciting views from the public, one resident pointed out that “most of the crime happens in the day”, questioning the focus on night-time restrictions.
This sentiment was echoed by another Facebook user who suggested that “based on my observation, most of the crimes are being committed during the day … I think the tinted vehicles should be looked at as well as the sale and use of nonsurgical masks”.
Some community members strongly support the curfew, with one woman advocating for strict enforcement. “You should lock up the parents when you catch them child pon the road too, make them and them child share a cell for three weeks minimum,” she stated.
Another resident agreed with the curfew idea but emphasised the need for parental involvement, suggesting that parents should make provisions for adults to pick up or accompany children involved in after-school activities.
Others see the curfew as a starting point but emphasise the need for comprehensive solutions. As one resident put it, “The youths need more than curfew; they need mentoring, coaching and training, and opportunities to uplift their lives and become better people for themselves and the community.”
Several other residents raised concerns about the proposal’s limitations. One resident metaphorically stated, “Trying to kill plants from their leaves is a bad idea, the root is the right source, stop scratching the surface,” emphasising the need to address the root causes of youth crime rather than just its symptoms.
Suggestions for a more comprehensive approach emerged from the community discussion. These included implementing anti-gang programmes, establishing big brother/sister mentoring initiatives, increasing church involvement in schools, and fostering community-wide efforts for positive change.
While opinions vary, there seems to be a consensus that more needs to be done beyond just implementing a curfew. As one resident summarised, “It’s just a start; it’s better to start somewhere.”
The public appears ready for change, with many calling for a united effort to provide youth with positive alternatives and guidance.
