Penal Boundaries: Banishment and the Expansion of Punishment
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 1 January 2010
- journal article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in Law & Social Inquiry
- Vol. 35 (1), 1-38
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2009.01176.x
Abstract
We use this article to argue for greater recognition of legally imposed spatial exclusion—banishment—as a (re)emerging and consequential social control practice. Although the new social control techniques that entail banishment are buttressed by a blend of civil, administrative, and criminal law, they are best understood as punitive in nature. This argument is supported by two empirical findings. First, interviews with the banished indicate that spatial exclusion often has significant negative consequences akin to those identified by Sykes (1958) in his seminal account of the pains of imprisonment. Second, court data show that the growing use of civil and administrative banishment has increased the number of criminal cases involving allegations of noncompliance. These findings suggest that analysts of punishment might usefully broaden their focus to include phenomena that combine civil, criminal, and legal authority, and are not defined as punishment by their advocates.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Dealing with disorderTheoretical Criminology, 2008
- Criminal Law Comes HomeThe Yale Law Journal, 2006
- Two Decades of French Urban Policy: From Social Development of Neighbourhoods to the Republican Penal StateAntipode, 2006
- "IT'S GETTING CRAZY OUT THERE": CAN A CIVIL GANG INJUNCTION CHANGE A COMMUNITY?*Criminology & Public Policy, 2005
- What’s wrong with the sociology of punishment?Theoretical Criminology, 2003
- The NexusEthnography, 2002
- The Social Control of Cities?Published by Wiley ,2000
- Punishment and Modern SocietyPublished by University of Chicago Press ,1990