Quiz 1 Study PDF

01/28/25 Prof. Sylvestre Ethan Scaletta CRM 3305 Quiz 1 Study Lecture 1 Liberal Descriptive Theories ​ Police are a necessary evil but policing can be improved. ​ Focus: police institutions and its relationship to the public, the state, and law...

01/28/25 Prof. Sylvestre Ethan Scaletta CRM 3305 Quiz 1 Study Lecture 1 Liberal Descriptive Theories ​ Police are a necessary evil but policing can be improved. ​ Focus: police institutions and its relationship to the public, the state, and law ​ Purpose: Analyzing police practice to better understand the police What is Meant by Liberal ​ Liberalism as political and economic theory. The belief in rules of law and equality before the law. ○​ In this context, liberal is used in a way that these theories that take all of these aspects ○​ of democratic governance under capitalism as given or at least ideal. Why Descriptive ​ We discuss theories that are highly empiricist ○​ meaning that the theories being examined are grounded in empirical evidence—that is, observations, experiments, and real-world data—rather than abstract reasoning or purely theoretical speculation. ​ We collect data on what police do and say and analyze this to be able to answer the question: what is police, what does it do? How does it operate? And how can we make it better? Why Legal ​ Because we are moving past sociological and anthropological approaches and trying to descriptively understand the complex relationship between police and law. Police Use of Force Paradigm: Four Assumptions ​ Police arose as a response to predatory exploitation ○​ This assumes that policing developed as a way to protect individuals and communities from threats, crime, and exploitation by others. ​ The capacity to employ coercive force for order maintenance ○​ Police are granted legal authority to use force when necessary to maintain social order. ○​ This assumption justifies force as an essential tool for controlling crime, enforcing laws, and preventing chaos. ​ Minimum force is central to the police mandate ○​ This reflects the idea that police should only use the level of force necessary to achieve their objectives. ​ Police are for dealing with issues that cannot continue and must be dealt with immediately. ○​ Police are expected to intervene in situations that require urgent action, such as violent crimes or public disturbances.  ○​ This frames policing as an immediate response mechanism rather than a long-term solution to societal problems. Minimal Force ​ Capacity to use violence does not mean constant violence ​ While police use of force should be minimal in its intensity, it is unlimited in its scope ​ Velvet/Glove/Iron fist: Policing through consent hinges on the ever present threat of force Defining Police ​ Policing agents are part of several connected organizations authorized to use in more or less controlled ways diverse means, generally prohibited by statute or regulation to the rest of the population, in order to enforce various types of rules and customs that promote a defined order in society, considered in its whole or in some of its parts ○​ Example: municipal, federal, private, military police etc ○​ The phrase “more or less controlled” acknowledges that while police actions are supposed to be regulated (through laws, oversight, and policies), in practice, control varies—sometimes leading to misuse of power or excessive force ○​ Expands policing beyond just enforcing formal laws (criminal codes, traffic laws) to include social norms and customs (e.g., controlling protests, monitoring public behavior, informal community policing). Early Definitions of Police ​ Historically, "police" did not refer strictly to a professional law enforcement body but was tied to broader ideas of governance, public order, and social control. Here’s a breakdown of the three broad meanings ○​ Police was synonymous with good governance ​ In the 17th and 18th centuries, particularly in France and Germany, "police" meant the management of public welfare, economy, health, and morality. ○​ Public order, particularly in cities ​ Urban policing focused on crowd control, regulating markets, and preventing riots rather than just criminal investigations. ○​ Order and the means of achieving order ​ This broad meaning includes both formal institutions (military, magistrates, guards) and informal mechanisms (community watch, local governance) used to maintain order. Peel’s Principles ​ The police are the public - the public are the police ○​ Response to resistance with creational of first professionalized police force as domestic military force ○​ Important as for police to be effective they need public approval The Royal Irish Constabulary(Colonial Model) ​ The public are not the police; the police are not the public ​ Law establishing rather than enforcing Popular Misconceptions about Police ​ Police fight crime ○​ Fighting crime is very small part of profession ​ Police enforce the law ○​ Research shows cops make decisions and then either seek out laws to justify what they’ve decided to do. ○​ When it is said law is subsidiary to order- law functions to give an acceptable form to decision taken in line with a certain vision of order ​ Police keep the public safe-the public is everyone(not true) ○​ The public is not everyone ○​ Police can be source of disorder ​ We live in a police state ○​ If police and government overlap too much we have a police state. We do not live in a police state High and Low Policing ​ Low Policing is routine order maintenance and calls for service ○​ Involves everyday policing tasks such as responding to calls for service, patrolling neighborhoods, and enforcing criminal law. ○​ Focuses on preventing crime, resolving disputes, and maintaining public order in communities. ​ High Policing maintains the integrity of the state and wellbeing of its population ○​ Also political policing ○​ Reaches out for potential threats in a systematic attempt to preserve the distribution of power in society ○​ Uses intelligence gathering, surveillance, and covert operations to track potential threats. ○​ Carried out by national security agencies, secret services, and intelligence units rather than local police. Lecture 2 Police Power, Governmentality, and Government ​ From a Foucauldian perspective the art of governmentality entails identifying a population and then setting some objectives to enhance or maximize wellbeing ​ Police power refers to the state's capacity to enforce laws, maintain order, and regulate public conduct through visible, coercive force (e.g., arrests, surveillance, crowd control). ○​ It is exercised through law enforcement agencies, the legal system, and physical intervention in public spaces. ○​ Rooted in the idea that the state must protect society from threats (crime, disorder, political instability). ○​ Example: Riot police dispersing protesters or conducting stop-and-frisk practices. ​ Governmentality, a concept from Michel Foucault, refers to the way power operates through institutions, norms, and knowledge systems to shape behavior. ○​ Unlike police power, it does not rely on overt force but instead influences people through self-regulation, discipline, and social norms.  ○​ It works through schools, healthcare, media, welfare programs, and bureaucracies to guide populations in ways that align with state interests. ○​ Example: Public health campaigns promoting "good citizenship" by encouraging vaccination or anti-drug education in schools ​ How are they parallel? ○​ Both seek to regulate society—police power through coercion, governmentality through soft regulation and self-discipline. ○​ They operate simultaneously: while police enforce laws, governmentality shapes the conditions that make certain behaviors "normal" or "deviant." ○​ Example: The criminalization of homelessness—police remove homeless people from public spaces (police power), while welfare policies, shelters, and social services regulate their behavior and reintegrate them into the workforce (governmentality). What is Government ​ Governmentality operates through rational, calculated governance, meaning it is planned, systematic, and knowledge-based rather than reactive or arbitrary. ​ Police power, in contrast, is often discretionary, immediate, and situational, meaning it responds to specific incidents rather than following a long-term structured plan. What is Governmentality ​ Governmentality as “the conduct of conduct” ○​ Governmentality is about guiding and shaping behavior rather than simply imposing laws. ○​ It refers to how authorities structure the possible actions of individuals and groups so that they behave in ways that align with state objectives. ○​ Example: Instead of banning unhealthy foods outright, the government nudges people toward healthier choices by taxing junk food, labeling calories, or promoting fitness culture. ​ “Populations as target, political economy as its knowledge, and apparatuses of security as its technique” ○​ Populations as target: Unlike earlier forms of rule (which governed individuals directly), governmentality focuses on managing entire populations—controlling birth rates, public health, crime, and economic productivity. ○​ Political economy as knowledge: Governments use economic theories and statistical knowledge (like GDP, unemployment rates, or crime statistics) to understand and regulate society. ○​ Apparatuses of security as technique: This refers to mechanisms that regulate risks and uncertainties in society, such as welfare systems, police, surveillance, and public health measures. ​ Historical processes of governmentalization ○​ This refers to the gradual shift from ruling through force to governing through techniques of management and regulation. ○​ In earlier societies, rulers governed through direct coercion (laws, punishment, military force), but modern states govern more subtly by shaping knowledge, norms, and self-discipline.  ​ Analytic Framework for Studying Governing Projects ○​ Governmentality is not just a theory but a method of analysis—it allows scholars to examine how different policies and institutions work together to govern people’s lives. ○​ It helps in studying things like policing, public health, education, and economic regulation as interconnected governance strategies rather than isolated laws or policies. Governmentality as the Conduct of Conduct Involves ​ The governed are viewed as actors/subjects- a locus of freedom ​ Governing through freedom ​ Governing at a distance: government seeks to shape the field of potential action ​ Success in meeting governing objectives always partial Power ​ Power is repressive- everything is about oppression- a misreading of Foucault ​ Governmentality signals a shift in the traditional understanding of power ​ Knowledge/Power- the authority to frame a social problem, to sort, categorize, and represent a population based on knowledge one produces about that population is an act of power Ways of Knowing: Knowledge/Power ​ To govern, whether to govern a household, a ship, or a population, it is necessary to know that which is to be governed and to govern with that knowledge Governmentality as Analytic ​ All governing projects have four basic features ○​ Distinctive ways of thinking and questioning; procedures for producing truth derived from sciences; expertise(ways of knowing) ○​ Characteristic practices for seeing and perceiving(ways of seeing) ○​ Specific and definite techniques and technologies on people(ways of doing) ○​ Ways of forming subjects, identities, selves, persons(modes of subjectification) 1. Ways of Knowing (How knowledge is used to govern) Refers to the systems of knowledge that define how things are studied, measured, and understood to enable governance. Examples: ​ Census Data: Governments use population data to plan policies like healthcare or education systems. ​ Risk Assessments: Identifying areas prone to wildfires or floods to plan interventions. ​ Scientific Studies: Using climate science to justify carbon emission policies or regulations. ​ Statistics: Tracking unemployment rates to inform job creation programs. 2. Ways of Seeing (How people or things are made visible to govern) Focuses on how institutions "see" and categorize individuals, groups, or issues to manage them effectively. Examples: ​ Security Cameras: Making public spaces visible to enforce rules and deter crime. ​ Heat Maps: Visualizing crime hotspots to allocate police resources. ​ ID Systems: Assigning numbers or profiles to individuals (e.g., passports, student IDs) to track their activities. ​ Satellite Imagery: Monitoring deforestation or urban sprawl for environmental governance. 3. Ways of Doing (Techniques and tools used to govern people) Covers the practical actions, tools, and systems implemented to influence and control behavior. Examples: ​ Vaccination Programs: Setting up clinics and mandating vaccines to manage public health. ​ Tax Systems: Using tax brackets and deductions to shape financial behavior, like encouraging home ownership. ​ Urban Design: Building parks or bike lanes to encourage healthier lifestyles. ​ Public Campaigns: Anti-smoking ads or recycling initiatives designed to nudge behavior. 4. Modes of Subjectification (How individuals internalize governance and shape their identities) Refers to how governance shapes individuals’ sense of self, responsibilities, and actions to align with societal expectations. Examples: ​ Responsible Citizen: Recycling and conserving water because you feel it’s your duty to protect the environment. ​ Good Student: Studying hard and following school rules to achieve success, as expected by parents and teachers.  ​ Healthy Individual: Exercising and eating well because of campaigns that frame health as a moral obligation. ​ Consumer Identity: Defining yourself through purchases and lifestyle choices, shaped by market-driven governance. 1. Governing Objectives: What does uOttawa want from students? ​ The university's primary goals include academic success, discipline, employability, and institutional reputation. ​ It aims to produce competent graduates who contribute to the workforce and uphold the university’s prestige. ​ Secondary objectives include retention rates, diversity and inclusion policies, and financial sustainability (tuition fees, research funding). 2. Ways of Knowing: How does uOttawa govern students through knowledge? ​ The university relies on academic assessments, research, and administrative data to make governance decisions. ​ Student performance metrics (GPA, attendance, course enrollment) help determine who succeeds or struggles. ​ Surveys and feedback mechanisms (course evaluations, mental health surveys) help shape policies. ​ Institutional policies and student codes of conduct define acceptable behavior and consequences for violations. 3. Ways of Seeing: How does uOttawa make students visible? ​ Student ID cards and enrollment records track individual students. ​ Course participation and academic progress monitoring make student engagement visible. ​ Surveillance through Canvas/Brightspace, attendance tracking, and AI proctoring for exams ensures compliance. ​ Social media presence and marketing materials showcase “ideal” students for recruitment purposes. 4. Ways of Doing: What techniques and tools does uOttawa use to govern students? ​ Academic regulations: Deadlines, required credits, and prerequisite structures discipline student progress. ​ Financial tools: Tuition fees, scholarships, and financial aid shape access and commitment. ​ Campus resources: Wellness centers, career services, and student associations reinforce university objectives. ​ Disciplinary measures: Academic integrity policies, codes of conduct, and disciplinary hearings regulate behavior. 5. Modes of Subjectification: How does uOttawa make students internalize its goals? ​ University branding (“Gee-Gees pride,” academic excellence, research impact) fosters identity formation. ​ Gradual professionalization: Internships, networking events, and “career-readiness” narratives push students to see themselves as future workers, not just learners. ​ Pressure to excel: Competitive academic culture reinforces self-discipline and responsibility. 6. Resistance: How do students push back? ​ Protests and student activism: Challenging tuition hikes, campus policies, and institutional decisions. ​ Collective organizing: Student unions and grassroots movements advocate for student rights. ​ Strategic disengagement: Skipping lectures, using AI for assignments, or manipulating systems like exam deferrals. ​ Alternative identities: Rejecting institutional labels (e.g., seeing oneself as more than just a "degree-seeking student"). 1. Governing Objectives: What do governing bodies want from you as a driver? ​ Safety & order: Reduce accidents, ensure smooth traffic flow, and minimize disruptions. ​ Compliance with laws: Follow speed limits, obey traffic signals, and maintain vehicle registration. ​ Revenue generation: Fines, tolls, insurance fees, and taxes contribute to state income. ​ Surveillance & security: Prevent crime, track movement, and manage urban planning. 2. Ways of Knowing: How are you governed through knowledge? ​ Driving tests & licensing: Knowledge exams and road tests establish who is "qualified" to drive. ​ Traffic laws & regulations: Speed limits, right-of-way rules, and DUI laws define "proper" driving behavior. ​ Data collection: Insurance companies, GPS apps, and law enforcement track driving habits. ​ Risk assessment: Statistical models determine accident-prone areas, peak hours, and high-risk drivers. 3. Ways of Seeing: How are you made visible as a driver? ​ License plates & vehicle registration: Identify you and your car in official records. ​ Traffic cameras & speed radars: Monitor compliance with laws. ​ Police presence & random checks: Ensure real-time enforcement. ​ Telematics & GPS tracking: Apps like Google Maps, Waze, or insurance-based tracking make your driving habits visible. 4. Ways of Doing: What techniques and tools are used to govern you? ​ Fines & penalties: Speeding tickets, parking violations, and license suspensions deter rule-breaking. ​ Point-based licensing systems: Accumulating demerit points can lead to suspension. ​ Insurance pricing: Risk-based premium adjustments incentivize safe driving. ​ Urban design & road signs: Speed bumps, one-way streets, and traffic lights regulate movement. ​ Public campaigns: "Don’t drink and drive" ads and seatbelt laws shape behavior. 5. Modes of Subjectification: How do you internalize governance as a driver? ​ Identity as a "responsible driver": You learn to self-regulate speed, signaling, and focus. ​ Fear of consequences: Internalized awareness of cameras, fines, and accidents influences behavior. ​ Social pressure: Being a "good driver" is tied to responsibility, maturity, and status. ​ Technology dependence: Relying on navigation apps instead of personal judgment. 6. Resistance: How do drivers push back? ​ Rule evasion: Speeding, rolling stops, or using phone apps to detect police and radars. ​ Legal loopholes: Challenging tickets, modifying vehicles, or exploiting road design. ​ Alternative transportation: Biking, public transit, or carpooling to opt out of certain governance measures. ​ Non-compliance movements: Protesting new traffic laws, rejecting road tolls, or resisting surveillance measures (e.g., covering license plates). Police Power ​ Police power being largely discretionary and often unenumerated, authorities acting under the banner of police are always seeking particular solutions to specific and ever-changing problems of order and security ○​ Unlike strictly codified laws, police authority often relies on judgment and situational assessment. ○​ Not all police actions are explicitly outlined in legal codes—many fall under general mandates like maintaining order and security. ○​ Policing is not static; it responds to new threats and societal changes (e.g., cybercrime, protests, pandemics). How Does Police Power Differ From Government ​ Unenumerated and discretionary ​ Regulatory measures ​ Coercion must be justified in terms of serving the general welfare ​ Objective: maximize peace, order, prosperity and efficiency ​ Acts on specific groups, spaces, times, activities Lecture 3 What is Surveillance ​ Any systematic focus on personal information in order to influence, manage, entitle or control those whose information is collected ○​ Dominant organizational practice that often results in people being sorted The Panopticon ​ Only works if the object of surveillance knows they are being watched or are likely to be watched ​ The idea was that you internalize the gaze-constant reflection on their behaviour Disciplinary Power ​ The prison ​ The workhouse ​ The school ○​ We have the discipling of bodies and souls through space. Through time-timetables and schedules- and peoples activities and behaviours(drills, posture, movements) ​ Discipline is not a concept, but rather a collection of techniques of governance that exercise power in a similar way Limitations of Panopticon ​ Dataveillance- surveillance is increasingly automated, what constitutes watching is different ​ People are no longer exclusive targets of surveillance Surveillance and Governmentality ​ Surveillance remains absolutely crucial to liberal or neoliberal governmentality ○​ To govern population, you need to know population Social Sorting ​ Surveillance makes groups intelligible so they may be more effectively categorized ​ Having control over our public persona is important as are the ways in which we are profiled and categorized, because such processes have an impact on our life chances and choices Influence ​ The collection and use of personal data to influence our preferences, identities, desires, and many routine aspect of our lives. ○​ Targeted advertising ○​ Shapes our view of the good life ○​ For profit- captures attention ​ Corporations use the information they gather about us to reconstruct the social environment itself in order to promote certain kinds of identities and relationships that advance corporate interests-profit-not our interests or wellbeing DataVeillance and Dividuals ​ Mass surveillance operationalized through the collection of data associated with digital traces left by our daily life ​ In dataveillance, various types of electronic data, such as internet browsing history, social media interactions, location data, and other digital traces, are collected, processed and analyzed to gain insights into individuals’ behaviours, preferences, and activities ​ Surveillance technologies, especially in the era of big data, tend to break down individuals’ identity into discrete data points. ○​ May include online activities, location data, social media interactions ​ A dividual is a person whose identity is understood and managed through the collection and analysis of various data points, often fragmented aspects of their behaviour, preferences and activities Politics and Resistance ​ Where there is power there is resistance ​ The right to be forgotten ​ Privacy legislation in Canada Lecture 4 Who is the Public ​ The public is a category, it never encompasses everyone ​ If something is everything then it's not really anything at all Public, Performativity, and Urban Precarity ​ Subjectification ○​ Puts out their trash on garbage day ○​ Gets high at home instead of public spaces ○​ Income strategies: job, scholarship etc ​ Abjectification ○​ Roots through people's trash for bottles ○​ Income strategies: panhandling, sexwork ○​ Gets high in public spaces ​ Subjectification is bringing subjects into being-creating subjects-or in this instance-public ​ Abjectification is the process of making non-subjects-outside the bounds of law, or, the non-public ​ Police power as we describe it has no mode of subjectification-because it is always looking for threats or dangers to the general welfare ​ Performativity: “I” say it and in saying make it so ​ Subjectification: Process of bringing subjects into being – creating people ​ Abjectification : Process of creating non-subjects outside the bounds of law Police Power and Social Control ​ Governing practices that work through discretion, regulation, and coercion to ensure peace, order, and prosperity and where infringing individual freedoms in justified in the name of the general welfare Key Characteristics of Police Power ​ For Foucauldian scholars, police power is not a thing. It is a mode of governance with identifiable techniques, rationalities, logics and knowledges ○​ Discretionary, unenumerated, undefinable ○​ Pre-liberal origin (sovereign power) ○​ Maximize ‘peace, order, and prosperity’. ○​ No a priori human object of governance ○​ Works through regulation, prohibition, and coercion ○​ Public interest/welfare justifies coercion. ○​ Grows in response to new governing problems (rarely shrinks) ○​ Hinge between temporalities of governance (i.e., prevention and punishment) What is Marginalization ​ Triple process of ○​ Being made superfluous to the dominant economic system ​ Economic exclusion: This refers to the situation where certain groups are rendered unnecessary or irrelevant to the mainstream economic processes. For example, they may not be included in the formal job market, or their labor may be undervalued. ​ Impact on livelihood: These groups may find it difficult to secure stable, well-paying work, leading to economic insecurity. This can include people in low-income jobs, the unemployed, or workers in the informal economy who do not contribute to the dominant economic model. ○​ Being deprived of opportunities to exercise capacities in socially defined and recognized ways ​ Social exclusion: Marginalized individuals or groups often lack opportunities to participate fully in society according to its standards and expectations. ​ Restricted social roles: This can manifest in educational barriers, limited access to cultural participation, or being excluded from political decision-making. ​ Stigma and discrimination: Those marginalized may be denied opportunities based on factors like race, gender, disability, or social class, which prevents them from contributing to or benefiting from society in ways others can ○​ Being forced into a state of dependency with a concomitant erosion of basic rights of citizenship  ​ Economic and social dependency: Marginalization can lead to individuals becoming reliant on state welfare programs, charities, or informal economies to survive, often leading to a cycle of poverty and dependency. ​ Loss of rights: As individuals become marginalized, they may experience a loss of citizenship rights, such as access to healthcare, voting, or equal treatment under the law. ​ Civic disempowerment: Marginalized groups may be denied a voice in political processes, making them more vulnerable to exploitation, and leaving them without the means to change their situation. Neoliberal Reason: Cuts, Cuts, Cuts ​ Mass homelessness was a sudden crisis resulting from neoliberal policy failures ○​ Disinvestment from social housing ○​ Reduction in social assistance ○​ Closure of psychiatric care facilities ○​ Asset inflation in housing Neoliberal Urbanism ​ Neoliberal period shifted from a managerial approach to a financialized entrepreneurial approach ○​ Reduced financial support from federal and provincial government ○​ Urban government focused on attracting investment ○​ Financialization: gentrification and capital accumulation ​ Rather than managing cities with residents in mind – the new governing priority became making your city as attractive as possible to potential investors. Urban poverty concentrated in the downtown core becomes an even more acute governing challenge when cities want to draw investors downtown to anchor massive revitalization projects. Vagrancy Laws ​ Criminalized mobility and fixity in the absence of employment ​ Vagrancy laws were a way for urban authorities to govern what they deemed disorderly conduct ​ Laws for criminalizing vagrancy and vagabondage were not merely a product of capitalism-they predate capitalism and were employed during the medieval period ​ Criminalizing Poverty: Vagrancy laws criminalized individuals who were seen as wandering or staying in one place without visible means of financial support. The key issue here is that these laws weren't based on detailed checks like modern financial systems (e.g., bank statements), but were applied based on discretion—essentially, a subjective judgment by authorities ​ The application of these laws often relied on visual cues. The "tramp" or vagrant was marked by appearance, and because the law targeted certain groups of people, some scholars argue that this early form of categorization has roots in racializing ideologies.  This racializing logic often existed before the more modern concept of race, where individuals could be classified and discriminated against based on their visible status. ​ The “Vagrant” was an elastic category that gathered and defined an array of distinct people as criminals – it could be stretched at the discretion of the authorities to include any people authorities didn’t like ​ For instance the English Vagrancy Act of 1714 bundled together: Wanderers, beggars, settled paupers, sex workers, travelling merchant and traders “who could not make a good account of themselves (so romani), peddlers, bear-wardens, collectors – so a range of making a living outside of waged labour and tend to be itinerant Punishing Vagrancy ​ Vagrancy laws were administered by city magistrates, justices of the peace, overseers of the poor, constables, and hired contractors ​ Vagrancy laws justified in the name of the public good – the various practices associated with poverty were construed as a public nuisance and authorities would innated purges ​ Vagrancy Laws bundled together and criminalized a diversity of empirically unrelated activities, non-normative ways of being and working when poverty and difference could be read on the body– and defined them all Vagrants – a new and broader class of criminal – use punishment and discipline to bring them in line. ​ If we think with Foucault and understand the workhouse – not as a site of police power, but of disciplinary power to work on the souls of individuals to make them productive docile subjects of capitalism – POLICE power was the discretionary arbitrary – sovereign power – that negated any rights these folks may have had and slammed them in the workhouse Civil Rights Vs. Police Power ​ Civil rights and freedoms can be at odds with the police objective of maximizing order, prosperity, and efficiency and the exercise of coercion in the name of general welfare. Spatial Regulation as Neo-Vagrancy Laws ​ Bylaws that govern how spaces are used ​ Hostile urban design ​ Laws that use space to punish ​ The neo vagrancy argument asserts that the way in which cities govern visible economic and social marginalization through space represents a continuity with historial vagrancy laws ​ Rather than using laws that govern people, we are governing space Governing Through uses ​ Municipalities govern through the category of uses not persons ​ Bylaws: laws that formalize rule made by a municipal council to regulate, prohibit or impose requirements ○​ Zoning, nuisance, parking, building codes etc ○​ No burning garbage, sleeping in park etc.  ​ Bylaws can’t be said to target any people in particular so they are accepted ​ They criminalize activities that are legal on private property. Governing Uses: Sweeps ​ Police power: anything that does not fit in a 60 gallon container with lid closed can be confiscated ​ Resistance: sweeps ruled unconstitutional by California supreme court ​ Counter resistance- cities immediately issued new quality of life infractions ​ Homeless laws are reframed under quality of life infractions Hostile Urban Design ​ Designing out the right to rest ​ Using urban design to discourage urban residents from using space in a manner deemed disorderly by urban authorities Using Space to Punish ​ Banishment(expulsion or exile) as a punishment was supplanted containment as the dominant means of controlling crime through deterrence ​ Containment is more straightforward. It is prisons ​ Expulsion or exile-exile has not been used as a form of punishment for centuries. Essentially in old school, you were banished from land Modern Banishment ​ Banishment names a suite of legally hybrid techniques that seek to govern urban disorder by excluding unwanted persons from parts of the city over extended periods of time. ​ Whereas the bylaws we were discussing above were laws of general application – they apply to uses of space prohibited to everyone. – On the face of it- we are not governing people, we are governing space. ​ Banishment – as Herbert and Beckett define – is a bit a different – that difference lies in their legal hybridity and the way in which they target individuals ​ Banishment’s Legal Hybridity: banishment involves targeting specific individuals based on their actions or behavior, making it distinct from general laws that apply universally to everyone. As defined by Herbert and Beckett, banishment is a hybrid legal technique because it combines elements of law enforcement and social exclusion. It’s not just about regulating space; it’s about identifying individuals who are considered disruptive and actively removing them from certain spaces. ○​ Geofencing and Exclusion Zones: Some cities or communities create exclusion zones, where specific individuals (such as those convicted of certain crimes) are banned from entering. For example, sex offenders might be prohibited from living or loitering within certain distances from schools or parks. Parks Exclusion Laws ​ Parks exclusion laws authorize police and parks officials to ban persons alleged to have committed minor infractions (such as being present after hours, having an unleashed pet,  camping, urinating, littering, or possessing an open container of alcohol) from one, some, or all city parks for up to one year (depending on the number and type of violation). ​ BC it’s the violation of a city ordinance – it’s a civil offence. – the sanction is seen as light bc there is no arrest involved – they are only banned from the park for a while ​ No evidentiary bar – if you’ve been issued the sanction – the sanction is evidence that you violated the ordinance ​ The legal Hybridity here is that civil law is being used to deal with could be construed as public order crimes – misdemeanors in the use – summary offences here – bc ○​ They created a new type of crime Innovations in Trespass Laws ​ Contractual agreements with property owners that authorize police to issue “trespass admonishments” banning persons from a property or group of properties (typically open to the public) for a year ​ Police identify problem areas and then work out a contract with the owner to exercise the owners rights of ownership in their place ○​ Used in malls, business, social housing complexes, parking lots ​ Admonished for Being on property “without legitimate purpose” – Who determines legitimate purpose? Discretion of owners and police- similar to vagrancy laws ​ No evidence of criminal intent required (civil trespass) – no means rea – if it’s a mall – how do you trespass at a mall – if you break in at night we could establish intent – but during the day – so this is civil trespass used in pretty much the same way as criminal trespass ​ we see the hybridity between civil and criminal law – now that you’ve been admonished – exiled from the space – if you come back you’re committing criminal trespass Pocket Parks ​ Spatial governance of sex workers ​ Parks cited near halfway houses ​ Proximity violates parole ○​ Pocket parks are small, public green spaces often found in urban environments, sometimes placed in areas with high foot traffic. They are typically used as a way to manage public space in a way that discourages certain activities. ○​ In the context of sex workers or individuals on parole, pocket parks may be used strategically for spatial governance. For example, if a neighborhood or city wants to prevent specific activities (like prostitution or loitering) in an area, they may develop these small, often isolated spaces where individuals are encouraged to stay away. This method effectively governs who can occupy certain spaces at particular times. ​ Authorities may try to control the movement of sex workers by focusing enforcement in specific areas, such as parks, streets, or neighborhoods known for sex work. This strategy  often attempts to push sex workers out of more visible, central areas into less populated zones, thus spatially isolating them. ​ Halfway houses are transitional living spaces for people leaving prisons or institutions. In this case, the proximity of halfway houses to certain public spaces (such as parks) becomes significant in terms of legal control. ​ Many individuals in halfway houses may be subject to parole conditions that restrict their movements. If a halfway house is located near certain parks, for example, parolees may be prohibited from entering those spaces, either because they are seen as unsafe or because they are areas where they might encounter situations that could lead to reoffending ​ The proximity of parks to halfway houses might violate the conditions of a parolee’s release if they come too close or enter spaces that are deemed inappropriate or unsafe. This type of spatial regulation can be seen as a form of governance, controlling the movements and behaviors of formerly incarcerated individuals. Structural Incommensurability ​ The legal tools and rationalities used to govern uses are incommesurable with the logic of rights- and with the broader logic of personhood. ​ The political work of jurisdiction keeps them from clashing ​ Governing through space hinges on this incommensurability ​ Police power is illiberal, ad hoc, discretionary, undefinable –whereas rights are clearly defined, liberal, While they are not absolute, they certainly aren’t discretionary. ​ They operate at different scale, they are used to govern different objects, different ways of seeing – seeing like a city is very different than seeing like a state ​ Incommensurability refers to the idea that two systems or frameworks are fundamentally incompatible or unable to be measured or compared by the same standard. In this case, it's about the legal tools used to govern space versus the logic of rights and personhood. ​ The passage suggests that the methods of governing space (e.g., through zoning, police power, or spatial exclusion) are incommensurable with the logic of individual rights and personhood, meaning they operate according to different principles or logics. ​ The legal tools and rationalities used to regulate or govern spaces (such as policing and exclusionary laws) often contradict the logic of rights, which is based on personal freedoms and individual protections. ​ The political work of jurisdiction refers to the way legal systems create boundaries and distinctions that prevent clashes between these different logics. Jurisdiction is the authority given to legal bodies (like the state or police) to enforce laws in specific areas or contexts. ​ By keeping the governance of space separate from the logic of individual rights, jurisdiction allows these two logics to operate without directly conflicting. The spatial governance tools (like police power) and individual rights work in parallel but do not usually collide because they operate in different legal and political spheres. Alternatives with Enforcement ​ Instead of arresting individuals for certain offenses, law enforcement officers have the discretion to divert them into the LEAD program. The idea is that police know folks well enough to know who would benefit from diversion ​ Harm Reduction Approach: The program embraces a harm reduction model, focusing on addressing the root causes of criminal behavior and reducing harm to individuals and the community. ​ Community Collab: LEAD involves collaboration between law enforcement, social service providers, and community stakeholders. This collaborative approach is intended to better address the complex issues faced by individuals involved in non-violent offenses. ​ Client-Centered Approach: The program aims to be client-centered, tailoring interventions and support services to the specific needs of each participan Dismantling Vagrancy Laws ​ Critiques and challenges: ○​ Infringing on human rights ○​ Criminalizes poverty ○​ Ineffectiveness ○​ Legal challenges ​ Some Courts recognized arguments that people experiencing homelessness are a class of people and that Vagrancy laws intentionally targeted people forced to live in poverty – who had not committed or intended to commit a crime - violating the principles of equal protection under the law ​ Finally Legal Challenges on constitutional grounds – Courts have struck down vagrancy laws because the violated rights of Due Process and equal protection under the law