Search results

Our Dublin correspondent telegraphed last night:

In Seattle and other cities, recent expansions of trespass law make the regulation of public space easier and more extensive. A range of new tools allow police officials to clear spaces of those deemed undesirable; they define zones of exclusion and increase the police's power to make arrests. The use of these tools extends contemporary practices of using criminal law to address instances of urban “disorder.” We draw on data from Seattle to catalog some of these new tools, the capabilities they create, and the implications they generate. One important such implication is that they work to push undesirables so far to the margins – spatially, socially, politically, legally – as to render them far outside the body politic. The use of these techniques thus raises important questions about the advisability of addressing social problems by increasing the power of the criminal law.

This chapter examines the ‘new lateral surveillance’, spearheaded by government anti-terrorism campaigns urging citizens to report any suspicious people and objects they encounter. Drawing a comparison between this and the community crime prevention (CCP) programmes of past decades, the chapter discusses the likely effectiveness of such campaigns in controlling crime and increasing security, suggests an alternative interpretation and discusses the consequences of the culture of suspicion generated by this form of surveillance. It concludes that the new lateral surveillance is a form of ‘high policing’ that is both political and dangerous in its vulnerability to errors.

I. Introduction to the Study of the Economic Role of Government: Alternative Approaches to Law and Economics

Various authors allege that the theory of group selection is inconsistent with methodological individualism, and therefore analysts must reject at least one of these principles. The present article argues for their compatibility. The meaning of methodological individualism is clarified, and the new version of group selection (articulated by Wilson & Sober, 1994, 1998) is explained. The two principles are then incorporated into a single methodological approach. Group selection affects the assumptions made about the kind of individuals who populate social scientific models, while methodological individualism requires models’ conclusions to follow from the actions and interactions of those individuals.

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.