Search results

This chapter seeks to classify condominium crime, explain its neglect in light of the growth of condo living in cities and closely consider the prospects for greater visibility and legal regulation of these acts. We deploy traditional dichotomies of white-collar/street crime and insiders/outsiders to construct a two-dimensional typology of condo crime and illustrate each type using empirically grounded examples from extensive qualitative research in Ontario and New York State entailing analysis of media accounts, condo owner association and corporation websites, and numerous interviews with owners, board directors and industry actors. We argue that the condo form retains peculiar characteristics that tend to prevent public reporting of condo crimes and leaves the ‘usual suspects’ (i.e. street criminals) in the spotlight while other, potentially more damaging, acts are neglected. We conclude by discussing barriers to knowing the extent of condo crime and their relationship to legal regulation.

Through an analysis of texts and interviews with sanctuary providers from sanctuary incidents in Canada, this paper first details how sanctuary is made possible by pastoral and non-state sovereign powers. It then argues at least three stories of law are instantiated in sanctuary discourse. Law is at times arbitrary and unpredictable. In other instances, a ‘higher’ law authorizes sanctuary. Law is also a broader game in which lawyers are relied upon and sanctuary becomes a tactic to ‘win’. These legal narratives work together to constitute sanctuary and are instantiations of pastoral and sovereign powers at the level of the subject.

In the Canadian province of Ontario government-funded legal aid underwent significant change in the 1990s in ways that mirror the trajectory of other governmental programs typically referred to in the governmentality literature as a shift to neo-liberalism. Through an analysis of interviews with lawyers and programmatic texts closely linked to legal aid practices this chapter reveals that legal aid is shaped by neo-liberal and pastoral rationalities. The implications of these findings both for legal aid research and governmentality studies are discussed.