Recent youth policy has included a number of attempts to control behaviour which for many is seen as problematic, but can be argued simply to be natural behaviour for young people (Stephen and Squires 2004). It will be argued that a key issue in the construction of “antisocial behaviour” is public space, and how, whether or not a crime is in progress, adults seek to exclude children from the public arena. It will be argued and that this could be related to how children who are out of place lie outside of the “dominant framework” of childhood (Lee 2001), and also how this may be more apparent in urban areas, due in part to the constraints that built up environments may put on children’s use of space. This will then be placed within wider analyses of crime control in late modernity, arguing that attempts to control children’s use of space are themselves crimionogenic.
Certain reactions to the perceived “problem” of youth “crime” must be noted for their effect of being able to exclude, either socially, temporally, or spatially, young people who may not have committed any crime. Antisocial Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) were brought in by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and their power increased by the Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003. An ASBO can be issued to any person, though young people are often the recipients. An ASBO requires the cessation of “antisocial behaviour”: defined as “acting in a manner that caused or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household” (Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in: Squires & Stephen 2005: 38). Their breach is punishable by criminal sanctions. ASBOs can be criticised for various reasons, but a notable effect is that they may exclude a person from certain areas, and that “antisocial behaviour” may simply be hanging around on the street (Burney 2005; Squires and Stephen 2005; inter alia).
Local Child Curfews were brought in by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and initially enabled local authorities to apply for a curfew on children under 10. The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 extended their powers, enabling local chief police officers to apply for an order, and increased the age limit to under 16 (Crawford and Lister 2007). Dispersal Orders were implemented by the 2003 Antisocial Behaviour Act, partly in response to a lack of use of curfews. A dispersal order may be used to disperse a group of two or more people from a designated area if it is identified that there is a risk of persistent antisocial behaviour, or if their presence is deemed to be causing distress. Once an area is designated as a dispersal area, (which requires an officer of superintendent rank or higher to make an application to the local authority, with grounds and specific details, and to publicise the decision), any police officer or community support officer can make the decision to disperse a group, whether their presence has caused distress to other, or it is believed that it may do. (Crawford and Lister 2007). The implications of this and potential for victimisation are obvious: it may be based on a very subjective judgement from a low ranking or civilian officer, and no crime or antisocial behaviour is required to have taken place; the presence of young people where they are not desired can be enough.
It can be shown that legislation such as these can me used to reduce the spatial freedom of various sections of society. Such groups include: sex workers (Sanders 2005), homeless people (Johnsen and Fitzpatrick 2007), students (Kenyon 1997, B. Hudson 2003), Gypsies (Sibley 1995), “New Age” travellers (Hetherington 1998, James 2005), Street Traders (Coleman 2007), those who are mentally ill (Peay 2002) or those who just choose an alternative lifestyle such as squatting (Chatterton and Hollands 2003). It can of course be argued, that the behaviour, or presence of some of these groups could indeed be considered undesirable and challenge the homogeneity of communities (Sibley 1997), however these provisions can also disproportionately target groups such as ethnic minorities (Crawford and Lister 2007) those in poverty (Cook 1997) or those of a lower social class who do not fit in with a desire to gentrify inner cities (Coleman 2007). Young people are also increasingly targeted (Stephen and Squires 2004); a group for which a common-sense approach would surely promote inclusion.
“They’re still children and entitled to be children” argues a mother, interviewed by Stephen and Squires (2004: 364), yet it is apparent that children and young people are often seen as a problem, for which increasing measures of control must be created (Valentine 1996a; Lee 2001; Stephen and Squires 2004). Obviously young people (like any other section of society) do commit crime and this has an affect on those who are victims and this must be considered when analysing responses to crime (Lea and Young 1984), furthermore, the activities of certain groups or youth cultures, notable modern examples including Mods and Rockers (Cohen 1973), “Muggers” (Hall et al. 1978) or the “Acid House” movement (McRobbie and Thornton 1996; Presdee 2000) have caused concern, even if this has arguably been moral panic. However young people have throughout history been demonised (Pearson 1983). In a time when the Government informs us that “Youth Matters” (DfES 2006), it is a pertinent question why this attitude endures.
There are a number of factors which can be argued to be “engines of bad behaviour” (Burney 2005 ch.4), such as reactions to living in poverty and exclusion (Cook 1997, Young 1999), gender tensions (Burney 2005), and the fact the young people necessarily push boundaries (Hayward 2002). There is said to be overall an increasing “culture of complaint”, (Burney 2005: 80), an increasingly “panoptic” society (Foucault 1977), a “culture of control” (Garland 2001), a feeling of living in a Risk Society (Beck 1992, B. Hudson 2003). It is argued that factors such as these interact with an increasing view that crime has simply become commonplace leading to an almost obsessive fear and reaction to behaviour that is legally constructed as a crime (Loader and Sparks 2002). This in turn leads to measures which seek to prevent crime more by control rather than understanding (Feely & Simon 1992) and have an effect which can be described as “net widening” and “mesh thinning” – a desire to identify and target groups (such as youth), with increasingly punitive responses (Cohen 1985).
Whether or not this overall anxiety about crime is rational is outside the scope of this discussion; however it is argued that crime that is committed by young people is seen as somehow different to crimes committed by adults (Valentine 1996b). It is argued that the murder in 1993 of 2 year old James Bulger by two 10 year old boys was a pivotal event which led to a reconstruction of children from angels to devils (Valentine 1996b, Fionda 2005) and catalysed underlying fears of youth (Muncie 2004). It is easy to see how youth crimes of this magnitude, however rare (Brookman 2005), could shock a society to such a reconstruction of childhood, and lead to political “pragmatic realism” (Muncie 2000) demanding policy changes. It is however a long way from this, to the situation identified by Burney (2005: 64) where “young people hanging about” are often seen as synonymous with crime.
There are various interpretations of the mechanisms whereby this viewpoint may develop: a redefinition of acts which have hitherto proved difficult to punish (Burney 2005) or a perceived enforcement deficit (Squires and Stephen 2005), the idea that minor incivilities lead to a fear of crime – based on Wilson and Kelling’s (1982) “Broken Windows” thesis, and even the fact that the British Crime Survey asks specifically about young people on the streets as a form of measuring perceived antisocial behaviour (Burney 2005). All of these may be valid points. However, despite this net widening effect, reasons for the assumed synonymy of children with crime deserve consideration. For the purposes of this discussion, it will be accepted that young people do suffer a level of victimisation from these policies; it will be argued are a mechanism by which processes of purification of space and boundary maintenance, an important part of the construction of deviance and the regulation of behaviour by dominant groups (Sibley 1995, 1997), may be achieved.
It is necessary at this point to note how identities of adults and children may be socially constructed. Construction of childhood has changed over history, from (it is argued) being seen as miniature adults, through ideas of children as innocent needing protection, or children as savage – needing controlling (Hendrick 2002). These latter two views have been characterised by Jenks (1996 in: Holloway and Valentine 2000: 3) as Dionysian and Apollonian constructions – unruly “little devils” and innocent “little angels”. More recently, there has been identified an enduring “dominant framework” of childhood (Prout and James 1992 cited in: Wyness 2006: 119). This has four main themes. The first is a clearly defined binary between adults and children; contrasting aspects such as children being of nature, and adults of culture. The second is children’s lack of ontology; they are unformed in their own right. Thirdly, children are seen as proto-individuals; they are human becomings, not human beings. Finally, children are seen to need the continual involvement of the state, to manage their well-being. The challenge presented to this dominant framework by children who are spatially out of place (Lee 2001) will become clear as the contradicting geographies of children and adults are discussed.
Children arguably inhabit different geographies to adults. Children’s use of space also affects their construction as either angels or devils, and whether angels or devils, children’ construction as close to nature, causes them to fit poorly within regulated adult geographies (Sibley 1995). Discussing a study of children’s geographies in a rural village, Jones (2000) notes the differentiation between smooth and striated space. Striated space is hierarchical, orientated and over-determined, whereas smooth space is nomadic, non hierarchical and un-orientable (Deluze and Guttari 1998 in: Jones 2000: 44). Jones describes how the village (to which he gives the name “Allswell”) is clearly built along adult terms: striated space. However, children in the village, though they do striate the space in their own terms such as “boring, scary, interesting, more or less likely to get told off“ (2000: 36), largely flow through these adult boundaries between street, garden or churchyard, smoothing the space. In addition many spaces are for them polymorphic, serving different purposes, for example the village cricket pitch is a legitimate playground when no game is being played, or a stand of conifers becomes a den; its purpose in the adult geography uncompromised by the use that children put it to.
What Jones’ (2000) description shows, is an expression of the Apollonian or pure construction of childhood in how children use space that is not rigorously controlled. Though Burney (2005) identifies that boredom due to lack or amenities may provoke behaviour that is seen as problematic from young people in rural areas, it is argued that whilst in the pure space (Sibley 1995) of the village, this Apollonian construction of childhood is maintained, unlike in urban areas which are seen as dangerous and crime ridden, as against the nostalgic countryside (Scott et. al 1998 in: Jones 2000: 35). “Allswell” appears as the epitome of rural idyll, and despite the descriptions of space fitting into an adult/child binary, it seems in the relative purity of rural space many of these activities are tolerated. The description of children’s alternative striation of adult space including “more or less likely to be told off” would indicate that sanctions against children out of place may be largely informal in nature.
Early sociological works on urbanisation argue that communities and relationships in cities are subjectively different to those in rural communities. Toennies (1887 in: Cahnman 1995) first identified the shift from what he termed gemeinschaft (loosely translated as community) to gesellschaft (association) relationships, in which characteristics pertinent to this discussion are the shift from unity to individuality, and from custom to contract and law. Simmel (1903) discussed cities as characterised by gesellschaft relationships and a lack of familiarity, as urban dwellers meet such a number of people they do not form close relationships. Wirth (1938) believed city life to be incompatible with community; there is a contrast between the isolation of city dwellers and the integrated communities of rural dwellers. Though concerned with changes occurring over time, as more people moved to cities through gradual urbanisation, these theories do give a sense of how children in urban areas that are not closely known may well become acutely perceived as the “dangerous Other” (Stephen & Squires 2004: 351) from whom one needs protecting, particularly if one accepts Sennet’s (1977) assertion that nostalgia for and attempts to recreate gemeinschaft type relationships within the city serve to heighten anxiety.
Children may be oppressed by urban environments (Valentine 1996a); boundaries in city space are stricter, flows through it are interrupted and mechanisms of social control are “surreptitiously woven into the fabric of the city” (Hayward 2004: 156). Cities are by their very geography exclusionary, and endure almost as a metaphor for social order as a whole (Cohen 1985). Many children’s experience of crossing boundaries is from the confines of a vehicle, effectively keeping children confined in adult space (Fotel and Thomsen 2004). City space is also not polymorphic: for example Hayward (2004: 159, original italics) notes “seats are only for sitting on, not for […] skateboarding, partying […] on”. It is therefore easy to see how in a tightly packed inner city estate reconfiguration of adult space would be more difficult for children who are constrained within it. Clearly the activities which challenge these strict boundaries come under suspicion, or are not tolerated. Examples of this difference can be seen in a quote from parents in “Allswell”:
“Jack running around with a huge stick (here), sort of, it looks funny, rather than menacing.”
and;
“'[…] he [son] couldn’t be a wild thing in Crompton Road [their old address] without people telling him off or whatever whereas out here [the village], he can, can’t he?’” Jones (2000: 35):
Sibley (1995) explores this notion of children as wild, and close to nature. He provides an example of media representations of children in a detergent advert, running free outside, until they are returned to the home to be washed clean. The idea of children as a polluting influence is taken up by Valentine (1996a), children are seen to pollute public space. In terms of reactions to youth crime, this is more apparent for children within the age range that can be dealt with by criminal sanctions as youth is on the boundary between childhood and adulthood, therefore not fitting within the dominant framework of the clear adult/child binary. As noted by Cahill (1990), the behaviour of younger children is often seen as endearing whilst similar behaviour from older peers would not be tolerated. Sibley (1995: 37) notes how blurred boundaries (both spatial and ontological) have historically created a sense of impurity, noting from Douglas’ (1966) analysis of biblical definitions of “unclean” animals as being those that do not fit neatly into their class that this seems ingrained in human perception. Hayward’s (2002) connection of the activities of young people which may result in minor crimes with the notion of edgework (Lyng 1990) gives a further sense of this liminality as edgework is essentially “negotiating the boundaries between order and chaos” (1990: 855) to attain self determination; perhaps in this sense the chaos of childhood and the order of adulthood.
So whilst this freedom to be wild is, it appears, available in some rural environments, in urban areas it would appear that adults’ hegemony over public space (Valentine 1996a) is more pronounced. Although children and adults have differing ideas of children’s ability to safely negotiate this space (Valentine 1997) and children are argued to be far better developed social actors than given credit for (Wyness 2006), this exclusion of children from the public arena is often dressed up as a concern for their safety (Valentine 1996a). It must be noted that safety is a concern that is cited as a part of the reasoning for local child curfews (Muncie 2004), however it seems likely that children’s presence on the street is simply seen as undesirable. Adults clearly want the streets to themselves. All of these mechanisms add up to a situation, where urban children are excluded from the public arena, however, as will be discussed, it is this group who perhaps need this freedom more.
The “street” (used here as a term for all public spaces) is an important place for children and young people in urban areas. Matthews et al. (2000) describe how the street functions as thirdspace, a place outside of accepted adult/child binaries; a space that allows the construction of identity, much in the same way the polymorphic areas in the rural village of “Allswell”. For many urban children, the street is also the place that is private, whereas the house is public; as noted by Sibley (1995) parents often fail to notice the need for privacy that children have. After dark, when adults have gone indoors, the street is a place where identity can be expressed in private (Corrigan 1979).
Children may also be forced onto the street: Donzelot (1980 Cited in: Cook 1997) describes how poor quality accommodation drives children on to the streets through lack of space, and Skelton (2000) discusses how teenage girls in the Rhondda Valleys of South Wales use the street as a place to escape from the largely patriarchal environment of the home. Sibley (1995) examines this idea, in a similar vein to Valentine’s (1996a) discussion of children’s polluting presence on the streets, noting that the desire for a clean, unpolluted home, exacerbated by media and advertising portrayals of the perfect living environment, which may include rooms off limits to children leads to the home becoming an exclusionary geography for children; the construction of deviance occurring also in the home.
In the panoptic society of late modernity this desire for the street as a place of privacy, or as a place where boundaries may be tested is bound to fail. With the rise of CCTV and other methods of surveillance, which disproportionately target categories who have a probability of offending and are based on pre-emptive intervention before deviance occurs (Norris & McCahill 2005), children will be ever under the gaze of adults. However many young people vociferously assert their perceived right to be on the street (Matthews et al. 2000; Skelton 2000), that they do not intend to cause trouble but it escalates – “someone gets a weird idea into their head, and they start to carry is out, and other’s join in” (Corrigan 1979: 128), or that their presence is targeted over and above worse behaviour from adult residents:
“I thought it was bullshit ‘cause we didn’t do half the things that goes on in this estate. […] …it seemed completely over the top when you see what others are doing…” (Stephen and Squires 2004: 360).
The targeting of young people as pre-emptive measure is, from a criminological perspective, a feature of risk management (Norris and McCahill 2005). A connection becomes apparent here between the idea of children as a polluting influence and ideas of risk, as risk and dirt have long been linked (Lupton 1999). Beck’s thesis of a Risk Society where “there exists a commonality of anxiety” (1992: 49) is a key theme here: much crime control is based on management of this perceived risk (Feely and Simon 1992), and the dirty, and therefore risky existence of children out of place seems likely to put them beneath this gaze.
Technological advances such as CCTV that allow for the regulation of children’s use of space to be monitored more closely, work in tandem with these political changes. Young people may be tagged as a youth court disposal, and a key development is the use of satellite technology to monitor the exact location of those tagged (Nellis 2005). With many children now using mobile telephones, this ability to track the location of children is now open to parents themselves (Fotel and Thomsen 2004); further reducing the extent that children can smooth adult space and traverse its boundaries. One further technological example is a device called a “mosquito” which emits a high frequency sound, audible only to those under the age of about twenty (Crawford and Lister 2007). This device is therefore entirely indiscriminate, not even relying on any person’s judgement of the possibility of a young person causing trouble.
Attempts are also made to increase striation of space (effectively imposing strict adult geographies upon children); the idea of defensible space (Newburn 1973). Examples of attempts to reclaim dangerous spaces (Hayward 2004) are the gating of alleyways or whole communities to limit the movement of undesirables (Blandy et al n.d.; Davis 1992), and the increased privatisation of formerly public space through the creation of privately owned “malls without walls” (Minton 2007), or semi-public housing estates (Kempa, et al 2005). Policy think-tanks argue for an increase in provision of children’s space (Beunderman et. al. 2007), yet in a sense, even spaces provided for children, such as playgrounds, act in an exclusionary manner, due to their aim of keeping children in their own defined place (Sibley 1995). In the UK attempts to purify space and limit antisocial behaviour are becoming part and parcel of town planning (Peel 2005).
It is argued that policies such as this can have a negative effect on childhood as an experience, criminalising normal childhood activities (Stephen and Squires 2004). Burney (2005) argues that many behaviours targeted by antisocial behaviour legislation are acceptable in adults, and though there is concern about the behaviour of adults at play in the streets, particularly in relation to the late night industry, it is likely that the money that this brings into the local economy prevent such wide-area systems of control (Chatterton and Hollands 2003; Hadfield 2007). It is argued that allowing children participation and agency in learning about the public world is a key part of their development (Beunderman et. al. 2007), yet as Hill and Wright (2003) note young people are seen as a threat to community, and hence outside community; part of the problem and therefore not permitted involvement in the solution. Furthermore in child/adult power negotiations a greater autonomy offered to children is likely to result in less conflict (Sibley 1995): though dispersal orders in a northern city suburb were reported to lower local residents’ fear of crime and perception of troublesome youth, fewer residents felt an increase in respect from young people, or reduced conflict between young and older residents. Furthermore a number of young people interviewed reported that they became more distrustful of the police. It is also argued that forms of situational crime control such as this can simply displace crime; in one study, incidence of antisocial behaviour was reported to rise 83% over the same period in a neighbouring area (Crawford and Lister 2007).
A recent example of this interplay between adult’s and children’s desire for use of space is provided by Crawford and Lister’s research (2007). In Leeds, in 2006, a city centre wide (due to fear of displacement) dispersal order was issued, largely in response to a groups of young “moshers” congregating around a city centre shopping precinct, with reports that shop owners were seeing a loss in trade and older users of the city centre felt uncomfortable with their presence. Many of the young people affected organised a protest against this action, arguing that the area had long been an important part of the city’s alternative youth subculture (many of the shops therein sell alternative styles of clothing), and that “being young is not a crime”. They expressed a feeling of victimisation by the police and that their behaviour was nothing that would even warrant an ASBO, it was simply their presence that was not desired (Indymedia 2006a; 2006b). This order in effect can remove any group of unaccompanied young people from the city centre and surrounding areas, though arguably disproportionately affects a particular subculture and their desire for self expression.
This example also serves to show the differences in the experience of children of different groups. Its is argued that children, though not universal, have a universal set of needs, (Fionda 2005). Though the children inhabiting Jones’ (2000) village of “Allswell”, Corrigan’s (1979) northern working class young men, Skelton’s (2000) Rhondda Valley girls and the young “moshers” targeted in Leeds discussed by Crawford and Lister (2007) are all from different backgrounds and places, their need for thirdspace (Matthews et al. 2000), or “youthful transgression” (Hayward 2002) or “meaningful non-adherence” (Goffmann 1961: 61 in Cahill 1990 398”) is shared. However class, location, gender or appearance strongly defines how young people are treated when their behaviour fulfilling these needs offends.
Whilst the shop owners in Leeds state simply that any group would cause them problems (Crawford and Lister 2007) the young people felt victimised due to how they dress (Indymedia 2006a; Crawford and Lister 2007). It is often argued that girls are treated very differently in the Criminal Justice System, often bringing sexual promiscuity into unrelated cases (B. Hudson 1982; Muncie 2004), and also that girls’ presence on the street is tolerated far less than boys (Griffin 1985, in: A. Hudson 1989: 298). However Crawford and Lister (2007) found that in their London case study of dispersal orders a majority of those dispersed and/or arrested for breach were male; also a significant number were black. As discussed, in rural modern-gemeinschaft communities the sanctions and control may largely be informal. Further, the need to participate in edgework may for more affluent children be fulfilled by activities such as horse-riding or adventure holidays, which may not be accessible to poorer urban children (Hayward 2002; Sutton et al 2007). Children in different countries will also experience different treatment. Burney (2005) provides examples of The Netherlands, where whilst there is a high risk awareness, children on the streets are often dealt with via social services rather than the criminal system, or Sweden, where although a penal system is used, a pre-emptive measure like ASBOs would be unthinkable. To give an extreme example Lee (2001) looks at how in Brazil, street children are often rounded up and shot by police.
Clearly in the UK the sanitising of public space from “dirty” children does not extend to rounding them up an shooting them as described by Lee (2001), but to various extents the movement of children through the geographies they inhabit is controlled, and in much of late modern UK society, can be and is controlled through the creation of pseudo-crimes, the notion of antisocial behaviour, and criminalisation when these controls are broken, which may be by simply being out of place. The desire to fit children into a box provided by the dominant framework of childhood still exists, and regulating children’s movement helps to accomplish this.
Of course policies and legislation do not appear spontaneously, however these theories of children’s use of space may provide an insight into one of the mechanisms whereby children who are out in the streets may tie up with a reconfiguration of the construction of children that returns to the older Dionysian image (Fionda 2005). As Burney (2005) discusses, though starting from popular viewpoints (perhaps exacerbated by media and moral panics, though as Sibley (1995) notes propaganda is often accepted as it is designed to fit the prevailing view) it is largely the influence of politicians and the overall political culture of the time that that lead to the development of policies. Crawford and Lister (2007) quote then Home Secretary David Blunkett, on the genesis of dispersal orders, describing how the public were crying out for a way to address certain behaviour, and consultation with the Police led to acknowledgement of a lack of power to disperse groups of young people. Clearly the public do at times feel threatened by the presence of gangs of youth, and as Muncie (2000) notes, much youth crime policy comes from this kind of political pragmatism.
As noted, panics about young people are nothing new (Pearson 1983), neither are attempts to limit their use of public space buy designing facilities in adult sizes (Cahill 1990) or schemes to bring them into the fold of education and employment, (Lee 2001). However a prevailing view of a decline in young people behaviour is evident in political rhetoric:
“[Tony Blair] also argued, with no apparent sense of irony, that in the 1930s of his father’s childhood, ‘people behaved more respectfully to one another and people are trying to get back to that.’ More recently, he has shifted this arcadia forward a generation, arguing that:
‘when I was growing up in the North-east of England, anti-social behaviour wasn’t a concept in people’s minds. That’s not to say that people weren’t doing bad things – they were. It was just it was a completely different order of problems that we had to deal with.’” (Willis 2007, italics added).
What must be noted here is that the genesis of the term “antisocial behaviour” used in this manner came from the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, under Blair’s government (Burney 2005), thus clearly showing how political solutions may drive the public opinion that fuels them.
Of course there are factors that are argued to be criminogenic, or to increase perception of risk. Whilst insecurity and risk awareness is a common factor in much of Europe (Giddens 1990 in: Burney 2005: 144), Burney (2005) notes how in cities such as Stockholm and Vienna where there is greater welfare provision and less socio-economic polarity of districts, fear of crime is lower. It is open to debate whether these places, or indeed Jones’ (2000) “Allswell” where there may be lower relative deprivation (Young 1999), do suffer less crime, or whether the more comfortable standard of living has an effect of reducing fear, but there certainly seems to be a clear correlation between poverty and fear of youth. It is also argued that the political culture in the UK has led to policy to more easily embrace American ideas of communitarianism and contested, yet useful for a purpose, theories such as Wilson and Kelling’s (1982) “Broken Windows” (Burney 2005).
Though Lea and Young’s (1984) reminder to acknowledge the effects on those who are victimised, must be heeded it is clear, that whatever the factors causing crime can be identified to be, the net widening effect of interventions such as ASBOs, Curfews and Dispersal orders does create more ways that crimes can be committed, by making it a crime to simply be out of place. Ultimately these policies, coupled with increased striation of space, by geographical attempts to design out crime, and situational prevention measures such as CCTV, create more places where a child is out of place spatially. Therefore these children do not fit into the dominant framework, ontologically ill defined and on the boundary, and thus therefore more likely to be feared as a polluting, risky other, an effect perhaps heightened by the wider ontological insecurity of late modernity (Young 1999). Urban crime is paradoxically often dissociated from the physical context of the city, seen rather than as an effect of city life, “an autonomous independent act” (Hayward 2004: 155). The circular nature of this effect is obvious, as there is then further enforcement deficit, and hence increasingly constricting methods of control. It is no surprise therefore that, as noted by Hodgkinson and Tilley (2007), although these interventions may ameliorate fear of antisocial behaviour, there is little evidence that they have any effect on reducing it.
Cited:
Buenderman, J, Hannon C., and Bradwell, P. (2007). Seen and Heard: Reclaiming the public realm with children and young people. London: Demos.
Brookman, F (2005) Understanding Homicide. London: Sage.
Blandy, S and colleagues (n.d.) National Study of Gated Communities: A Study for the ODPM New Horizons programme, extract from Leeds University Centre for Criminal Justice Studies research bulletin. [online: http://www.law.leeds.ac.uk/leedslaw/webdocs/leedslaw/uploadeddocuments/ccjs-scr.pdf] Accessed 5 February 2007.
Burney, E (2005) Making People Behave: Anti-social behaviour, politics and policy. Cullompton: Willan.
Cahill, S. E. (1990) Childhood and Public Life: Reaffirming Biographical Divisions. Social Problems. 37: 3: 390-402
Cahnman, W.J. (1995), Weber and Toennies – Comparative Sociology in Historical Perspective, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Chatterton, P and Hollands R, Urban Nightscapes: Youth Cultures, Pleasure Spaces and Corporate Power. Abingdon: Routledge
Cohen S (1973, 2002) Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. (Third Edition). London: Routeledge.
Cohen, S (1985) Visions of Social Control. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Cook D (1997) Poverty, Crime and Punishment. London: CPAG.
Coleman, R (2007) Confronting the ‘hegemony of vison’: state, space and urban crime prevention. Extract From: A. Barton, K. Corteen, D., and D. (eds.) Expanding the Criminological Imagination. Cullompton: Willan
Corrigan, P (1979) Schooling the Smash Street Kids. Basingstoke: Macmillan
Crawford, A. and Lister, S (2007) The use and impact of dispersal orders: sticking plasters and wake-up calls. Bristol: The Policy Press for Joseph Rowntree Foundation
DfES (2006) Youth Matters: Next Steps. Nottingham: DfES.
Davis, M. (1996) City of Quartz: Excavating the future in Los Angeles. London: Verso.
Douglas, M (1966) Purity and Danger: an analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul.
Feely, M & Simon, J (1992) The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging strategy of correction and its implications. Criminology. 30, 4, 449-474.
Fionda, J. (2005) Angels and Devils: Youth Policy and Crime. Oxford: Hart
Fotel, T. and Thomsen, T. U. (2004) The Surveillance of Children’s Mobility. Surveillance & Society 1: 4: 535-554 [Online: http://www.surveillance-and-society.org%5D
Garland, D (2001) The Culture of Control. London: Sage.
Goffman, E. (1963) Behaviour in Public Places. New York. Free Press.
Hadfield, P (2006) Bar Wars: Contesting the Night in Contemporary British Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hall, S., Chritcher, C., Jefferson, T., Clarke, J. and Roberts, B., (1978) Policing the Crisis: London: Macmillan Education Ltd.
Hayward, K. (2002) The vilification and pleasures of youthful transgression. Extract from: J. Muncie, G. Hughes, and E. McLaughlin (eds.) Youth Justice: Critical Readings. London: Sage.
Hayward, K (2004) Space- The Final Frontier: Criminology, the City, and the Social Dynamics of Exclsuion. Extract from J. Ferrell, K. Hayward, W. Morrison and M. Presdee (2004) Critical Crimology Unleashed. London: Glasshouse Press.
Hetherington, K. (1998) Vanloads of Uproarious Humanity: New age Travellers and the Utopics if the Countryside. Extract from: T. Skelton and G Valentine (eds.) Cool Places: Geographies of Youth Cultures. London: Routledge.
Hendrick, H. (2002) Constructions and reconstructions of British childhood: an interpretive survey, 1800 to the present. Extract from: J. Muncie, G. Hughes, and E. McLaughlin (eds.) Youth Justice: Critical Readings. London: Sage.
Hill, J. and Wright, G (2003) Youth, Community Safety, and the Paradox of Inclusion. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice. 42: 3: 282-297
Hodgekinson, S. and Tilley, N (2007) Policing Antisocial Behaviour: Constraints, Dilemmas and Opportunities. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice. 46: 4: 385-400.
Holloway, S. L. and Valentine, G (2002) Children’s Geographies and the New Social Studies of Childhood. Extract from: S L Holloway and G Valentine (eds.) Children’s Geographies: Playing, Living, Learning. London: Routledge.
Hudson, A. (1998) “Troublesome girls”: Towards alternative policies and practices. Extract from: J. Muncie, G. Hughes, and E. McLaughlin (eds.) (2002) Youth Justice: Critical Readings. London: Sage.
Hudson, B (1982) “All things nice?”, Social Work Today, 13,41,13-14
Hudson, B (2003) Justice in a Risk Society. London: Sage.
Indymedia (2006a) Leeds anti-asbo demonstration – full report and more pictures. [online: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/332120.html] Acessed 4 February 2008
Indymedia (2006b) The Kids Aren’t Alright: Leeds Corn Exchange Dispersal Order.
[online: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/leedsbradford/2005/12/330198.html] Accessed 4 February 2008.
James, Z (2005) Policing Space: Managing New Travellers in England. British Journal of Criminology. 46: 470–485
Johnsen, S and Fitzpatrick, S. (2007) The Impact of Enforcement on Street Users in England. Bristol: The Policy Press for Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Kempa, M., Stenning, P. and Wood, J (2005) Policing Communal Spaces: A reconfiguration of the “Mass Private Property” Hypothesis. British Journal of Criminology. 44; 562-581
Kenyon, E L (1997) Seasonal sub-communities: the impact of student households on residential communities. British Journal of Sociology. 48, 2, 286-301.
Lea, J & Young, J (1984) What is to be done about Law and Order. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Lee, N (2001) Childhood and Society. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Loader, I. and Sparks, R. (2002), Contemporary Landscapes of Crime, Extract from: M. Maguire, R. Morgan & R. Reiner (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (third edition), (ch2), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lupton, D. (1999) Risk. London: Routledge.
Lyng, S (1990) Edgework: A Social Psychological Analysis of Voluntary Risk Taking. American Journal of Sociology. 95: 4: 851-86.
Matthews, H., Limb, M., and Taylor, M. (2000) The “Street as Thirdspace”. Extract from: S L Holloway and G Valentine (eds.) Children’s Geographies: Playing, Living, Learning. London: Routledge.
McRobbie, A and Thornton, S L. (1995) Rethinking “moral panic” for multi-mediated social worlds, British journal of sociology, vol.46, issue 4, pp.561-574
Minton, A (2007) What kind of world are we building: The Privatisation of Public Space and the Implications of Antisocial Behaviour. Public Lecture, Leeds University School of Law, 9 October 2007. [Availible online: http://www.law.leeds.ac.uk/leedslaw/webdocs/leedslaw/seminar/minton.mp3%5D
Muncie, J (2000) Pragmatic Realism: Searching for Criminology in The New Youth Justice. Extract from B. Goldson (ed.) The New Youth Justice. Lyme Regis: Russell House.
Muncie, J (2004) Youth & Crime (Second Edition). London: Sage.
Newburn, O. (1973) Defensible Space and Crime Prevention through Urban Design. New York: Macmillan.
Norris, C & McCahill, M (2005) CCTV: Beyond Penal Modernism? British Journal of Criminology (2006) 46 97-118.
Nellis, H, (2005) Out of this World: The Advent of the Satellite Tracking of Offenders in England and Wales. The Howard Journal 44: 2: 125-50
Jones, O (2000) Melting Geography: Purity, Disorder, Childhood and Space. Extract from: S L Holloway and G Valentine (eds.) Children’s Geographies: Playing, Living, Learning. London: Routledge.
Pearson, G (1983) Hooligan: A history of respectable fears. London: Macmillan.
Peay, J. (2002), Mentally disordered offenders, Mental health and Crime, Extract from: Extract from: M. Maguire, R. Morgan & R. Reiner (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peel, D (2005) Planning for safe and secure communities: The Social Reconstruction of antisocial behaviour. Town Planning Review. 76: 3: 265-90
Presdee, M (2000) Cultural Criminology and the Carnival of Crime. London: Routledge.
Sanders, T. (2005) Sex Work: A Risky Business. Cullompton: Willan
Sennet, R (1977) Destructive Gemeinschaft. Extract from: N. Birnman (ed.) Beyond the Crisis. New York: Oxford University Press.
Sibley, D (1995) Geographies of Exclusion: Society and Difference in the West. London: Routledge.
Sibley, D (1997) Survey 13: Purification of Space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 6: 409-421
Simmel, G. (1903), The Metropolis and Mental Life, Extract from F. Anthias and M. P. Kelly, (eds.), Sociological Debates: Thinking about “The Social”, (ch6), Dartford: Greenwich University Press.
Skelton T (2000) “Nothing to do, Nowhere to go?”: Teenage girls and “public” space in the Rhondda Valleys, South Wales. Extract from: S L Holloway and G Valentine (eds.) Children’s Geographies: Playing, Living, Learning. London: Routledge.
Squires, P and Stephen, D, E (2005) Rougher Justice: Young people and antisocial behaviour. Cullompton: Willan.
Stephen, D, E. and Squires, P (2004) ‘They’re Still Children and Entitled to be Children’: Problematising the Institutionalised Mistrust of Marginalised Youth in Britain. Journal of Youth Studies. Vol 7, no. 3, pp.351-369
Sutton, L., Smith. N., Dearden, C. and Middleton, S (2007) A Child’s Eye View of Social Difference. York: Jospeh Rowntree Foundation.
Valentine G (1996a) Children should be seen and not heard: The production and transgression of adults’ public space. Urban Geography. 17, 3, 205-220.
Valentine G (1996b) Angels and Devils: Moral Landscapes of Childhood. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 14, 581-599
Valentine G (1997) “Oh yes I can.” “Oh no you can’t”: Children and Parents understandings of KIds’ competence to negotiate public space safely. Antipode 29, 1, 65-89
Watt, P. and Stenson, K. (1998) The Street: “It’s a bit Dodgy around There”: safety, danger, ethnicity and young peoples use of public space. Extract from: T. Skelton and G Valentine (eds.) Cool Places: Geographies of Youth Cultures. London: Routledge.
Werth, L. (1938), Urbanism as a Way of Life, Extract from: P. Kasinitz (ed.), Metropolis: Centre and symbol of our Times, (ch3), Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Willis, A. (2007) Historical myth-making in juvenile justice policy. History and Policy. Policy Paper 60; July 2007. [online: http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-60.html] Accessed 7 Febrary 2007.
Wilson, J & Kelling, G (1982) Broken windows: the police and neighbourhood safety. The Atlantic Monthly. March: 29-37.
Wyness, M (2006) Childhood and Society- An introduction to the Sociology of Childhood. Bastingstoke: Palgrave.
Young, J. (1999) The Exclusive Society. London: Sage
Leave a comment
No comments yet.
Lee6s F*ckhe@d C!ty 
Leave a comment