Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Civilizing Space or Criminalizing Place: Using Routine Activities Theory to Better Understand How Legal Hybridity Spatially Regulates “Deviant Populations”

  • Published:
Critical Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The combining of administrative, civil, and criminal law has broadened modern crime control mechanisms and greatly increased the legal authority and discretion of law enforcement officers. Such legal hybridity has contributed specifically to the pervasiveness of spatial regulatory practices (or spatial remedies), such as the use of banishment policies and civil gang injunctions (CGIs), by police in urban centers. While banishment policies and CGIs exemplify the reliance on legal hybridity to manage “deviant” populations spatially, empirical evidence suggests that spatial remedies guided by the theoretical underpinnings of deterrence and broken windows perspectives are not efficacious at predicting observed behavioral changes. We argue for a critical approach to understanding disobedience to spatial remedies, suggesting that routine activities theory is an appropriate framework to expose why these mechanisms fail to generate robust compliance or remedy problem areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Source: Sampson et al. (2010)

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We note that another branch of spatial remedies exists that focuses on those with oversight of disreputable populations (e.g., nuisance abatement), but we concentrate on banishment and CGIs for targeting illegitimate inhabitants directly.

  2. We note the use of other forms of spatial exclusion internationally, such as deportation and travel bans (see Cosgrove 2005; Crocitti and Selmini 2017; Macklin 2014; Macklin and Bauböck 2015), but we distinguish between banishment and these other forms.

  3. Antisocial behavior orders (ASBOs) have been used throughout the United Kingdom (UK) (Densley 2013; Squires 2008; Squires and Stephen 2005; Treadwell and Gooch 2015; Von Hirsch and Shearing 2001) and Australia (Ayling 2011; Crofts 2011; Johnsen and Fitzpatrick 2010; Johnstone 2016; Lansdell et al. 2012), and they are considered analogous to CGIs in this article, having a similar justification, mechanism, process, and perceived outcomes as CGIs. Recently, Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) have provided broad discretion to local authorities in the UK to regulate behaviors in public spaces deemed detrimental to local residents’ quality of life. The main difference between PSPOs is that they target a specific place, while ASBOs target particular individuals (see Brown 2017; Garrett 2015).

  4. While the UK has used ASBOs to exclude individuals from public spaces, similar to how banishment orders have been used in the US, there is scant empirical research on the outcomes of the banishment feature in an ASBO order (for more, see Von Hirsch and Shearing 2001).

  5. It should be noted that an important limitation of Carr and colleagues’ (2017) study is that their analysis does not control for whether criminal offending, either at the individual- or gang-level, is transpiring inside or outside of the CGI “safety-zone” for an enjoined gang.

  6. The Glendale Corridor CGI encompasses the Silver Lake and Echo Park communities, with the latter undergoing substantial demographic changes over the last decade. The community during this time has also been experiencing decreasing levels of crime, which local community groups and organizers have pointed to in questioning the efficacy and necessity of the CGI. The adoption of the CGI has only increased the tension among lower income neighborhood residents of color in Echo Park, who are being displaced by more upwardly mobile White professionals moving into the community.

References

  • Adler, J. S. (1986). Vagging the demons and scoundrels: Vagrancy and the growth of St. Louis, 1830–1861. Journal of Urban History, 13(1), 3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler, J. S. (1989). A historical analysis of the law of vagrancy. Criminology, 27(2), 209–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aldridge, J., Ralphs, R., & Medina, J. (2011). Collateral damage: Territory and policing in an English gang city. In B. Goldson (Ed.), Youth in crisis?’gangs’, territoriality and violence (pp. 72–88). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York: The New Press.

  • Aliprantis, D., & Hartley, D. (2015). Blowing it up and knocking it down: The local and city-wide effects of demolishing high concentration public housing on crime. Journal of Urban Economics, 88[July], 67–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allan, E. L. (2004). Civil gang abatement: The effectiveness and implications of policing by injunction. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, P. J., & Waugh, R. (2009). Status offenses and the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act: The exception that swallowed the rule. Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 7(2), 555–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayling, J. (2011). Pre-emptive strike: How Australia is tackling outlaw motorcycle gangs. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(3), 250–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannon, A., Nagrecha, M., & Diller, R. (2010). Criminal justice debt: A barrier to re-entry. New York: The Brennan Center for Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barajas, F. P. (2007). An invading army: A civil gang injunction in a Southern California Chicana/O community. Latino Studies, 5(4), 393–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton, M. S. (2016). Gentrification and violent crime in New York City. Crime & Delinquency, 62(9), 1180–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barton, M. S., Valasik, M., Brault, E., & Tita, G. E. (2020). ‘Gentefication’ in the Barrio: Examining the relationship between gentrification and homicide in East Los Angeles. Crime & Delinquency, 66(13–14), 1888–1913.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beccaria, C. (1963/1764) On crimes and punishments. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

  • Beck, G. A. (2004). Ban lists: Can public housing authorities have unwanted visitors arrested? University of Illinois Law Review, 24(5), 1223–1260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckett, K. (1997). Making crime pay: Law and order in contemporary American politics. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Beckett, K., & Herbert, S. (2008). Dealing with disorder. Theoretical Criminology, 12(1), 5–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckett, K., & Herbert, S. K. (2010). Banished: The new social control in urban America. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckett, K., & Murakawa, N. (2012). Mapping the shadow carceral state: Toward an institutionally capacious approach to punishment. Theoretical Criminology, 16(2), 221–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benbouzid, B. (2019). To predict and to manage. Predictive policing in the United States. Big Data & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719861703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, J. (2010/1789) An introduction to the principles of Morals and Legislation. New York: Clarendon Press.

  • Bichler, G., Norris, A., Dmello, J. R., & Randle, J. (2019). The impact of civil gang injunctions on networked violence between the bloods and the crips. Crime & Delinquency, 65(7), 875–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloch, S., & Meyer, D. (2019). Implicit revanchism: Gang injunctions and the security politics of white liberalism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775819832315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branic, N., & Kubrin, C. E. (2018). Gated communities and crime in the United States. In S. D. Johnson & B. Gerben (Eds.), The Oxford handbook for environmental criminology (pp. 405–427). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braga, A. A., Weisburd, D., Mazerolle, L. G., Spelman, W., & Gajewoski, F. (1999). Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: A randomized controlled experiment. Criminology, 37(3), 541–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brisman, A., & Carrabine, E. (2017). Deterrence. In A. Brisman, E. Carrabine, & N. South (Eds.), The Routledge companion to criminological theory and concepts (pp. 83–86). Abingdon, Oxon, UK, and New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K. J. (2017). The hyper-regulation of public space: The use and abuse of Public Spaces Protection Orders in England and Wales. Legal Studies, 37(3), 543–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunet, J. R. (2002). Discouragement of crime through civil remedies: An application of a reformulated routine activities theory. Western Criminology Review, 4(1), 68–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldwell, B. (2010). Criminalizing day-to-day life: A socio-legal critique gang injunctions. American Journal of Criminal Law, 37(3), 241–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camayd-Freixas, E. (2008). Raids, rights and reform: The Postville case and the immigration crisis. DePaul Journal for Social Justice, 2(1), 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campesi, G. (2010). Policing, urban poverty and insecurity in Latin America. Theoretical Criminology, 14(4), 447–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, R., Slothower, M., & Parkinson, J. (2017). Do gang injunctions reduce violent crime? Four tests in Merseyside, UK. Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, 1(4), 195–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charlotte Housing Authority. (2018). Limited access and banning policy and procedures. Charlotte, NC: Charlotte Housing Authority. Retrieved on October 5, 2020, from manage.cha-nc.org/public/content/resources/BANNING_POLICY_AND_PROCEDURES-AppendixJ.pdf.

  • Cheh, M. M. (1998). Civil remedies to control crime: Legal issues and constitutional challenges. In L. G. Mazerolle & J. Roehl (Eds.), Civil remedies and crime prevention studies (pp. 45–66). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (1987). Understanding crime displacement: An applicaation of rational choice theory. Criminology, 25(4), 933–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosgrove, E. (2005). Examining targeted sanctions: Are travel bans effective? In P. Wallensteen & C. Staibano (Eds.), International sanctions: Between words and wars in the global system (pp. 201–228). Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, A. (2009). Governing through anti-social behaviour regulatory challenges to criminal justice. The British Journal of Criminology, 49(6), 810–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crocitti, S., & Selmini, R. (2017). Controlling immigrants: The latent function of Italian administrative orders. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 23(1), 99–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crofts, T. (2011). The law and (anti-social behaviour) order campaign in western Australia. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 22(3), 399–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Densley, J. A. (2013). How gangs work: An ethnography of youth violence. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • England, M. (2008). Stay out of drug areas: Drugs, othering and regulation of public space in Seattle, Washington. Space and Polity, 12(2), 197–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fagan, J., Davies, G., & Carlis, A. (2012). Race and selective enforcement in public housing. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 9(4), 697–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, G. (2010). Situational crime prevention and its discontents: Rational choice and harm reduction versus ‘cultural criminology’. Social Policy & Administration, 44(1), 40–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felson, M., & Eckert, M. (2016). Crime and everyday life (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, P. (2003). Trespass-zoning: Ensuring neighborhoods a safer future by excluding those with a criminal past. Notre Dame Law Review, 79(1), 327–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In Graham Burchell, Colin Gordon, & Peter Miller (Eds.), The foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (1996). The Limits of the sovereign state: Strategies of crime control in contemporary society. The British Journal of Criminology, 36(4), 445–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (1997). ‘Governmentality’ and the problem of crime: Foucault, criminology, sociology. Theoretical Criminology, 1(2), 173–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garland, D. (Ed.). (2001). Mass imprisonment: Social causes and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  • Garland, D. (2012). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, B. L. (2015). PSPOs: The new control orders threatening our public spaces. The Guardian, September 8. Retrieved on October 8, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/sep/08/pspos-new-control-orders-public-spaces-asbos-freedoms.

  • Gascón, L. D., & Roussell, A. (2019). The limits of community policing: Civilian power and police accountability in black and brown Los Angeles. New York: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gault, M., & Silver, E. (2008). Spuriousness or mediation? Broken windows according to Sampson and Raudenbush (1999). Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(3), 240–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilkeson, J. S. (1986). Middle-class providence, 1820–1940. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, E. (2003). Kept out: Responding to public housing no-trespass policies. Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Journal, 38(1), 215–245.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goluboff, R. L. (2016). Vagrant nation: Police power, constitutional change, and the making of the 1960s. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, R. A., Walker, L., Maher, W. F., Gilmore, R. L., & James R. K. (2003). Brief of Amici Curiae Council of Large Public Housing Authorities, Housing and Development Law Institute, Housing Authority Risk Retention Group, National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials, National Organization of African-Americans in Housing, and Public Housing Authorities Directors Association in Support of the Petitioner. Commonwealth of Virginia v. Hicks, No. 02-371. Retrieved on October 10, 2020, from findlawimages.com/efile/supreme/briefs/02-371/02-371.mer.ami.clpha.pdf.

  • Grogger, J. (2002). The effects of civil gang injunctions on reported violent crime: Evidence from Los Angeles County. Journal of Law and Economics, 45(1), 69–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harcourt, B. E. (2010). Neoliberal penality. Theoretical Criminology, 14(1), 74–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedorn, J., & Rauch, B. (2007). Housing, gangs, and homicide: What we can learn from Chicago. Urban Affairs Review, 42(4), 435–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harling, N. (2008). A review of Charleston, South Carolina’s anti-loitering ordinance and its likelihood of surviving constitutional scrutiny. Charleston Law Review, 2(4), 775–806.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, A., Evans, H., & Beckett, K. (2010). Drawing blood from stones: Monetary sanctions, punishment and inequality in the contemporary United States. American Journal of Sociology, 115(6), 1753–1799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayward, K. (2007). Situational crime prevention and its discontents: Rational choice theory versus the ‘culture of now’. Social Policy & Administration, 41(3), 232–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hennigan, K. M., & Sloane, D. C. (2013). Improving civil gang injunctions: How implementation can affect dynamics, crime, and violence. Criminology & Public Policy, 12(1), 7–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbert, S. K. (1997). Police space: Territoriality and the Los Angeles Police Department. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herbert, S., & Beckett, K. (2017). Banishment and the post-industrial city: Lessons from Seattle. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 23(1), 27–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, G. (2005). The use of pre-existing exclusionary zones as probationary conditions for prostitution offenses: A call for the sincere application of heightened scrutiny. Seattle University Law Review, 28(1), 173–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hinkle, J. C. (2013). The relationship between disorder, perceived risk, and collective efficacy: A look into the indirect pathways of the broken windows thesis. Criminal Justice Studies, 26(4), 408–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, A. J. (1992). The rise of the penitentiary: Prisons and punishment in early America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollis, M. E., Felson, M., & Welsh, B. C. (2013). The capable guardian in routine activities theory: A theoretical and conceptual reappraisal. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 15(1), 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, J. C. (2015). The history of street gangs in the United States: Their origins and transformations. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

  • Huebner, B. M., Kras, K. R., Rydberg, J., Bynum, T. S., Grommon, E., & Pleggenkuhle, B. (2014). The effect and implications of sex offender residence restrictions: Evidence from a two-state evaluation. Criminology & Public Policy, 13(1), 139–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huey, L. (2007). Negotiating demands: Politics of skid row policing in Edinburgh, San Francisco, and Vancouver. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Janus, E. S., & Prentky, R. A. (2008). Sexual predator laws: A two decade retrospective. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 21(2), 90–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, B. J. (2017). Predictable policing: Predictive crime mapping and geographies of policing and race. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 73(2), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnsen, S., & Fitzpatrick, S. (2010). Revanchist sanitisation or coercive care? The use of enforcement to combat begging, street drinking and rough sleeping in England. Urban Studies, 47(8), 1703–1723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone, C. (2016). After the asbo: Extending control on young people’s use of public space in England and Wales. Critical Social Policy, 36(4), 716–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalhan, A. (2010). Rethinking immigration detention. Columbia Law Review, 110(1), 42–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, M. W. (1993). Attempting gang control by suppression: The misuse of deterrence principles. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 2(1), 88–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleuskens, S., Piché, J., Walby, K., & Chen, A. (2016). Reconsidering the boundaries of the shadow carceral state: An analysis of the symbiosis between punishment and its memorialization. Theoretical Criminology, 20(4), 566–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanfear, C. C., Matsueda, R. L., & Beach, L. R. (2020). Broken windows, informal social control, and crime: Assessing causality in empirical studies. Annual Review of Criminology, 3, 97–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lansdell, G., Eriksson, A., Saunders, B., & Brown, M. (2012). Infringement systems in Australia: A precarious blurring of civil and criminal sanctions? Alternative Law Journal, 37(1), 41–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Los Angeles City Attorney (LACA). (2017). List of gang injunctions. Retrieved on March 19, 2017, from http://www.lacityattorney.org/#!gang-injunction/c1y6a.

  • Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury (LACCGJ). (2004). Management audit of the civil gang injunctions. In Los Angeles County civil grand jury, 2003–2004 final report (pp. 169–335). Los Angeles: Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center.

  • Lynch, M. (2001). From the punitive city to the gated community: Security and segregation across the social and penal landscape. Univeristy of Miami Law Review, 56(1), 89–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M., Omori, M., Roussell, A., & Valasik, M. (2013). Policing the ‘progressive’ city: The racialized geography of drug law enforcement. Theoretical Criminology, 17(3), 335–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macklin, A. (2014). Citizenship revocation, the privilege to have rights and the production of the alien. Queen’s Law Journal, 40(1), 1–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macklin, A., & Bauböck, R. (2015) The return of banishment: Do the new denationalisation policies weaken citizenship? Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Research Paper No. RSCAS 2015/14. Retrieved on October 8, 2020, from https://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/34617/RSCAS_2015_14.pdf.

  • Maxson, C. L. (2004). Civil gang injunctions: The ambiguous case of the national migration of a gang enforcement strategy. In F. Esbensen, S. G. Tibbetts, & L. Gaines (Eds.), American youth gangs at the millennium (pp. 375–389). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxson, C. L., & Allen, T. L. (1997). An evaluation of the City of Inglewood’s youth firearms violence initiative. Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maxson, C. L., Hennigan, K. M., & Sloane, D. C. (2005). “It’s getting crazy out there”: Can a civil gang injunction change a community? Criminology & Public Policy, 4(3), 577–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazerolle, L. G., Price, J. F., & Roehl, J. (2000). Civil remedies and drug control: A randomized field trial in Oakland, California. Evaluation Review, 24(2), 212–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCorkle, R. C., & Miethe, T. D. (2002). Panic: The social construction of the street gang problem. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

  • McDougal, J. (2011). Civil gang injunctions. Twentieth annual gang violence conference. Anaheim, CA, August 2–5, 2011. Huntington Beach, CA: California Gang Investigators Association.

  • McNeil, R., Cooper, H., Small, W., & Kerr, T. (2015). Area restrictions, risk, harm, and health care access among people who use drugs in Vancouver, Canada: A spatially oriented qualitative study. Health & Place, 35[Sepetember], 70–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merry, S. E. (2001). Spatial governmentality and the new urban social order: Controlling gender violence through law. American Anthropologist, 103(1), 16–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, D. (1997). The Annihilation of Space by Law: The Roots and Implications of Anti-Homeless Laws in the United States. Antipode, 29(3), 303–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muñiz, A. (2014). Maintaining racial boundaries: Criminalization, neighborhood context, and the origins of gang injunctions. Social Problems, 61(2), 216–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muñiz, A. (2015). Police, power, and the production of racial boundaries. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagin, D. S. (2013). Deterrence in the twenty-first century. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 199–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newburn, T., & Jones, T. (2016). Symbolizing crime control. Theoretical Criminology, 11(2), 221–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, D. T., Farrell, C., & Welsh, B. C. (2019). Looking through broken windows: The impact of neighborhood disorder on aggression and fear of crime is an artifact of research design. Annual Review of Criminology, 2, 53–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Deane, M. D. (2012). Gang injunctions and abatement: Using civil remedies to curb gang-related crimes. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, K. E. (1996). Dialogue, perspective and point of view as lawyering method: A new approach to evaluating anti- crime measures in subsidized housing. Washington University Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law, 49(1), 133–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, M., & Loftus, B. (2013). Policing and the surveillance of the marginal: Everyday contexts of social control. Theoretical Criminology, 17(4), 437–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Packer, H. L. (1964). Two models of the criminal process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 113(1), 1–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palomo, E. (2002). The sheriff knows who the troublemakers are, just let him round them up: Chicago's new gang loitering ordinance. University of Illinois Law Review, 2002(3), 729–760.

  • Patterson, E. G. (2008). Civil contempt and the indigent child obliger: The silent return of debtor’s prison. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 18(1), 95–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pease, K. (2006). Rational choice theory. In: E. McLaughlin & J. Muncie (Eds.), The sage dictionary of criminology. London: Sage.

  • Provine, D. M. (2007). Unequal under law: Race in the war on drugs. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

  • Queally, J. (2018). California moving away from gang injunctions amid criticism, falling crime rates. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved on May 18, 2019, from https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-gang-injunctions-california-20180708-story.html.

  • Quevedo, J. (2016). Are gang injunctions a tool for gentrification? The case of the glendale corridor gang injunction (Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology). https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/105056/959718269-MIT.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.

  • Ramey, C. (2016). Permanent-ban policy in public housing under review. The Wall Street Journal, May 27. Retrieved on June 1, 2016, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/permanent-ban-policy-in-public-housing-under-review-1464343201.

  • Reinarman, C., & Levine, H. G. (Eds.). (1997). Crack in America: Demon drugs and social justice. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press

  • Ramírez, M. M. (2019). City as borderland: Gentrification and the policing of Black and Latinx geographies in Oakland. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway, G., Grogger, J., Moyer, R. A., & MacDonald, J. M. (2018). Effect of gang injunctions on crime: A study of Los Angeles from 1988–2014. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 119(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockford Housing Authority. (2018). Trespass policy. Rockford, IL: Rockford Housing Authority. Retrieved on October 8, 2020, from https://rockfordha.org/rha-rental-properties/tenant-info-accountability/.

  • Rosen, E., & Venkatesh, S. (2007). Legal innovation and the control of gang behavior. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3(2007), 255–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, M. J. (2005). Striking a balance: The efforts of one Massachusetts city to draft an effective anti-loitering law within the bounds of the Constitution. Suffolk University Law Review, 39(4), 1069–1088.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roussell, A. (2015). Policing the anticommunity: Race, deterritorialization, and labor market reorganization in South Los Angeles. Law & Society Review, 49(4), 813–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R., Eck, J. E., & Dunham, J. (2010). Super controllers and crime prevention: A routine activity explanation of crime prevention success and failure. Security Journal, 23(1), 37–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, L. (2001). Enclosure acts and exclusionary practices: Neighborhood associations, community police, and the expulsion of the sexual outlaw. In D. T. Goldberg, M. Musheno, & L. C. Bower (Eds.), Between law and culture: Relocating legal studies (pp. 122–140). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, D. H. (2017). Externalities of public housing: The effect of public housing demolitions on local crime. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 62[January], 24–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos, X., & Bickel, C. (2017). Apartheid justice: Gang injunctions and the new black codes. In M. Deflem (Ed.), Race, ethnicity and law sociology of crime, law and deviance (Vol. 22, pp. 27–38). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. J. (1998). Regulating opportunities: Multiple roles for civil remedies in situational crime prevention. In L. G. Mazerolle & J. Roehl (Eds.), Civil remedies and crime prevention (pp. 67–88). Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press, Inc.

  • Smith, C. M. (2014). The influence of gentrification on gang homicides in Chicago neighborhoods, 1994–2005. Crime & Delinquency, 60(4), 569–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, G. (1998). Black codes and broken windows: The legacy of racial hegemony in anti-gang civil injunctions. The Yale Law Journal, 107(7), 2249–2279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, F. (2016a). From ‘rabble management’ to ‘recovery management’: Policing Homelessness In Marginal Urban Space. Urban Studies, 51(9), 1909–1925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, F. (2016b). Down, out and under arrest: Policing and everyday life in skid row. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, F. (2016c). Becoming “copwise”: policing, culture, and the collateral consequences of street-level criminalization. Law & Society Review, 50(2), 279–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squires, P. (2008). The politics of anti-social behaviour. British Politics, 3(3), 300–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Squires, P., & Stephen, D. E. (2005). Rethinking ASBOs. Critical Social Policy, 25(4), 517–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinhart, D. J. (1996). Status offenses. The Juvenile Court: Criminology & Public Policy, 17(4), 911–937.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suk, J. (2006). Criminal law comes home. Yale Law Journal, 116(2), 2–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swan, R. S., & Bates, K. A. (2017). Loosening the ties that bind: The hidden harms of civil gang injunctions in San Diego County. Contemporary Justice Review, 20(1), 132–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sylvestre, M. E., Damon, W., Blomley, N., & Bellot, C. (2015). Spatial tactics in criminal courts and the politics of legal technicalities. Antipode, 47(5), 1346–1366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, E. E., Riordan, B., & Shiner, M. (2009). Gang injunctions: How and Why They Work. Los Angeles, CA: Office of the Los Angeles City Attorney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres, J. A. (2017). Predicting perceived police effectiveness in public housing: Police contact, police trust, and police responsiveness. Policing and Society, 27(4), 439–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres, J. A., & Apkarian, J. (2018). Banishment: A test of specific deterrence in public housing. Criminology & Public Policy, 17(4), 911–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres, J., Apkarian, J., & Hawdon, J. (2016). Banishment in public housing: Testing an evolution of broken windows. Social Sciences, 5(4), 61–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treadwell, J., & Gooch, K. (2015). An ASBO for violent gangsters or just continuing criminalisation of young people? Thinking about the value of “Gangbo. Papers from the British Criminology Conference: An Online Journal by the British Society of Criminology, 15, 60–76. http://www.britsoccrim.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/pbcc_2015_wholevolume.pdf#page=60.

  • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (1994). Public housing drug elimination project resource document: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

  • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (1999). In the crossfire: The impact of gun violence on public housing communities. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

  • Valasik, M. (2014). Saving the world, one neighborhood at a time: The role of civil gang injunctions at influencing gang behavior. PhD dissertation, Department of Criminology, Law & Society, University of California, Irvine, CA. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2065d17s.

  • Valasik, M. (2018). Gang violence predictability: Using risk terrain modeling to study gang homicides and gang assaults in East Los Angeles. Journal of Criminal Justice, 58(C), 10–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valasik, M., & Reid, S. E. (2019). Taking stock of gang violence: An overview of the literature. In A. Geffner, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal violence across the lifespan (pp. 1–21). Cham, CH: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62122-7_105-1.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Valasik, M., & Tita, G. E. (2018). Gangs and space. In S. D. Johnson & B. Gerben (Eds.), The Oxford handbook for environmental criminology (pp. 843–871). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hirsch, A., & Shearing, C. (2001). Exclusion from public space. In A. Von Hirsch, D. Garland, & A. Wakelfield (Eds.), Ethical perspectives in situational crime prevention (pp. 77–96). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wacquant, L. (2008). Relocating gentrification: The working class, science and the state in recent urban research. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(1), 198–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walby, K., & Lippert, R. (2012). Spatial regulation, dispersal, and the aesthetics of the city: Conservation officer policing of homeless people in Ottawa, Canada. Antipode, 44(3), 1015–1033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, C. (2002). Curfews: No more hanging around. Youth Justice, 2(2), 70–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, C. (2003). Dispersal of rights: A critical comment on specified provision of the anti-social behaviour bill. Youth Justice, 3(2), 104–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Western, B. (2006). Punishment and inequality in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

  • Whitmer, J., & Ancker, D. B. (1996). The history of the gang injunction in California. In Appendix M in SAGE: A handbook for community prosecution. Los Angeles, CA: LA County District Attorney.

  • Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. L. (1982). Broken windows: The police and neighborhood safety. The Atlantic Monthly, 127(2), 29–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, J. L., Alleyne, E., & Beresford, H. (2016). Deterring gangs: Criminal justice approaches and psychological perspectives. In B. H. Bornstein & M. K. Miller (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (pp. 305–336). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Worrall, J. L., & Wheeler, A. P. (2019). Evaluating community prosecution code enforcement in Dallas, Texas. Justice Quarterly, 36(5), 870–899.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, J. (2007). The vertigo of late modernity. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Young, J. (2011). The criminological imagination. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

Court Cases

  • City of Bremerton v. Widell, 51 P.3d 733 (Wash. 2002).

  • In re Jason Allen D., 733 A. 2d. 351 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1999).

  • L.D.L v. State, 569 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1990).

  • Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (1972).

  • People v. Krazy Ass Mexicans et al., Los Angeles County Case No. BC282629 (Cal. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County 2002).

  • Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113 (2003).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Louisiana State Univeristy, 17B Stubbs Hall, Baton Rouge, LA, 70803, USA

    Matthew Valasik & Jose Torres

Authors
  1. Matthew Valasik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jose Torres
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Valasik.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Valasik, M., Torres, J. Civilizing Space or Criminalizing Place: Using Routine Activities Theory to Better Understand How Legal Hybridity Spatially Regulates “Deviant Populations”. Crit Crim 30, 443–463 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-020-09537-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10612-020-09537-x

Search

Navigation