Penalising Presence in Public Space: Control through Exclusion of the ‘Difficult’ and ‘Undesirable

Abstract

Over the last two decades and across a number of jurisdictions, new measures enshrined in criminal law and administrative codes have empowered authorities to exclude unwelcome groups and individuals from public spaces. Focusing particular attention on recent reform in Britain, this paper traces the evolution of contemporary exclusionary practices, from their initial concern with proscribed behaviour to the penalisation of mere presence. The latter part of the paper offers a critical assessment of what has driven these innovations in control of the public realm. Here consideration is given to two possibilities. First, such policy is the outcome of punitive and revanchist logics. Second, their intentions are essentially benign, reflecting concerns about risk, liveability and failures of traditional ordermaintenance mechanisms. While acknowledging concerns about the over-eagerness of scholars to brand new policy as punitive, the paper concludes that any benign intentions are overshadowed by the regressive and marginalising consequences of preferred solutions.

A Civilianised Summary Power to Exclude: Perceptual Deterrence, Compliance and Legitimacy

“…Since 2014, Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) have empowered local authorities to apply prohibitions within specific public areas across England and Wales. Heap and Dickinson (2018) contend that PSPOs constitute an unregulated and almost unlimited power to prohibit or exclude, but there is little evidence to support their presumed beneficial effects on behaviour and/or community safety (Johnstone 2017). In Seattle, USA, police officers are permitted to issue on-the-spot exclusion orders from public spaces, which can last for up to a year.…”

Arcologies, Eco-shelters and Environmental Exemption: Constructing New Divisions and Inequalities in the Anthropocene

“…In public health medicine, the idea of 'quarantine' involves placing the infected and infectious in an enclosed, secured space to protect those 'outside' from contamination. In urban planning and design, a related but reversed principle aims to protect those who are allowed 'inside'-the 'included'-from those who should be 'outside'-the 'excluded'-employing mechanisms and controls such as zoning, apartheid, checkpoints and pricing (Herbert and Beckett 2009;Johnstone 2017;Walby and Lippert 2012). By way of illustration, consider Schindler's (2015Schindler's ( : 1934Schindler's ( -1935 account of the 'paradigmatic' story of Robert Moses-the 'Master Builder' of New York in the midtwentieth century-and the design and construction of bridges crossing over roads to the beaches of Long Island:…”

An Examination of Community Awareness and Understanding of Patron Banning Provisions in Western Australia: Implications for Policy Development and Success

“…Various forms of spatial exclusion, prohibition and patron banning are used across Australian and international jurisdictions in response to alcohol-related problematic behaviours, particularly in and around licensed premises — venues where alcohol can be purchased and/or consumed, such as bars, clubs etc. (Farmer, Curtis & Miller 2018 ; Farmer & Clifford 2021 ; Johnstone 2017 ). Powers to prohibit and exclude are presumed to increase community safety by removing troublesome individuals, preventing crime and acting as a deterrent to future undesirable behaviours (Farmer 2018 ; Miller, Curtis & Palmer 2016 ).…”