Southern Criminology, Zonal Banning and the Language of Urban Crime Prevention

  • Ian Warren
  • Darren Palmer


This chapter examines ‘property’ as a pivotal technology of governance, by analyzing the reemergence of zonal banning as part of an assemblage of exclusionary urban and rural crime control techniques in the English-speaking North and South. Rather than focusing on the concept of zonal banning per se, we suggest Southern criminology is better positioned to interrogate how legal terms produce certain governance assemblages that enable zonal banning to garner social and political legitimacy. We critically examine the term ‘property’ as a necessary precursor to understanding the legal power to ban individuals from designated urban zones, using select examples from the USA, the UK, Australia and Canada. We conclude by reinforcing the importance of Southern epistemology to the comparative examination of language, law and governance.


Southern criminology Zonal banning Neoliberalism Language Surveillance Property 


  1. Alloy, J. S. (2002). ‘158-county banishment’ in Georgia: Constitutional implications under the state constitution and the federal right to travel. Georgia Law Review, 36(4), 1083–1108.Google Scholar
  2. Beckett, K., & Herbert, S. (2010). Banished: The New Social Control in America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Belina, B. (2007). From disciplining to dislocation: Area bans in recent urban policing in Germany. European Urban & Regional Studies, 14(4), 321–336. Scholar
  4. Blomley, N. (2003). Property, and the geography of violence: Frontier, the survey, and the grid. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93(1), 121–141. Scholar
  5. Blomley, N. (2010). The right to pass freely: Circulation, begging, and the bounded self. Social & Legal Studies, 19(3), 331–350. Scholar
  6. Bookman, S., & Woolford, A. (2013). Policing (by) the urban brand: Defining order in Winnipeg’s exchange district. Social & Cultural Geography, 14(3), 300–317. Scholar
  7. Brady, M. (2016). Neoliberalism, governmental assemblages, and the ethnographic imaginary. In M. Brady & R. K. Lippert (Eds.), Governing Practices: Neoliberalism, Governmentality and the Ethnographic Imaginary (pp. 3–31). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  8. Braverman, I. (2016). Rights of passage: On doors, technology and the Fourth Amendment. Law, Culture and the Humanities, 12(3), 669–692. Scholar
  9. Burney, E. (1999). Crime and Banishment: Nuisance and Exclusion in Social Housing. Winchester: Waterside Press.Google Scholar
  10. Carrington, K., Hogg, R., & Sozzo, M. (2015). Southern criminology. British Journal of Criminology, 56(1), 1–20. Scholar
  11. Clarke, R. V. (Ed.). (1997). Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies (2nd ed.). Albany: Harrow and Heston.Google Scholar
  12. Colgate Love, M., Roberts, J., & Klingele, C. (2016). Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction: Law, Policy and Practice. Eagan, MN: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar
  13. Connell, R. (2007). Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Science. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  14. Crawford, A. (2006). Policing and security as ‘club goods’: The new enclosures? In J. Wood & B. Dupont (Eds.), Democracy, Society and the Governance of Security (pp. 111–138). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crawford, A. (2011). From the shopping mall to the street corner: Dynamics of exclusion in the governance of public space. In A. Crawford (Ed.), International and Comparative Criminal Justice and Urban Governance (pp. 483–518). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Currie, E. (2017). Confronting the North’s South: On race and violence in the United States. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 6(1), 23–34. Scholar
  17. Dardot, P., & Laval, C. (2014). The New Way of the World: On Neoliberal Society. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  18. Davis, M. (1990). City of Quartz: Excavating the Future in Los Angeles. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  19. Dorsett, S., & McVeigh, S. (2012). Jurisdiction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Douglas, H., & Finnane, M. (2013). Obstacles to ‘A proper exercise of jurisdiction’—Sorcery and criminal justice in the settler-Indigenous encounter in Australia. In L. Ford & T. Rowse (Eds.), Between Indigenous and Settler Governance (pp. 59–69). Milton Park and New York: Routledge-Glasshouse.Google Scholar
  21. Edgely, M. (2010). Criminals and (second-class) citizenship: Twenty-first century attainder? Griffith Law Review, 19(3), 403–437. Scholar
  22. Farmer, C. (2016). Upholding whose right? Discretionary police powers to punish, collective ‘pre-victimisation’ and the dilution of individual rights. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology. In press.
  23. Ford, L. (2008). Indigenous policy and its historical occlusions: The North American and global contexts of Australian settlement. Australian Indigenous Law Review, 12(1), 69–80.Google Scholar
  24. Goodman, N. (2012). Common Law and the Rhetoric of Social Exclusion in Early New England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  25. Graham, S., & Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering Urbanism: Networked Infrastructures, Technological Mobilities and the Urban Condition. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gray, K., & Gray, S. F. (1999). Civil rights, civil wrongs and quasi-public space. European Human Rights Law Review, 4, 46–102.Google Scholar
  27. Hadfield, P., Lister, S., & Traynor, P. (2009). ‘This town’s a different town today’: Policing and regulating the night-time economy. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 9(4), 465–485. Scholar
  28. Hayward, K. (2007). Situational crime prevention and its discontents: Rational choice theory versus the ‘culture of now’. Social Policy & Administration, 41(3), 232–250. Scholar
  29. Herbert, S., & Brown, E. (2006). Conceptions of space and crime in the punitive neoliberal city. Antipode, 38(4), 755–777. Scholar
  30. Hill, R. (1986). Policing the Colonial Frontier: The Theory and Practice of Coercive Social and Racial Control in New Zealand 1767–1867. Wellington: VR Ward.Google Scholar
  31. Hogg, R., & Carrington, C. (2006). Policing the Rural Crisis. Annandale: Federation Press.Google Scholar
  32. Jones, T., & Newburn, T. (2002). Learning from Uncle Sam? Exploring US influences on British crime control policy. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, 15(1), 97–119. Scholar
  33. Kahn, J. (2013). Mrs. Shipley’s Ghost: The Right to Travel and Terrorist Watchlists. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kercher, B. (1995). An Unruly Child: A History of Law in Australia. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  35. Levi, R. (2009). Making counter-law: On having no apparent purpose in Chicago. British Journal of Criminology, 49(2), 131–149. Scholar
  36. Lippert, R. (2009). Signs of the surveillant assemblage: Privacy, regulation, urban CCTV, and governmentality. Social & Legal Studies, 18(4), 505–522. Scholar
  37. Lippert, R., & Sleiman, M. (2012). Ambassadors, business improvement district governance and knowledge of the urban. Urban Studies, 49(1), 61–76. Scholar
  38. Lippert, R. K. (2016). Urban neoliberalism, police, and the governance of condo life. In M. Brady & R. K. Lippert (Eds.), Governing Practices: Neoliberalism, Governmentality and the Ethnographic Imaginary (pp. 181–197). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  39. Lippert, R. K., & Walby, K. (Eds.). (2013). Policing Cities: Urban Securitisation and Regulation in a Twenty-First Century World. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Logan, W. A. (2009). Knowledge as Power: Criminal Registration and Community Notification Laws in America. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maniscalo, A. (2015). Public Spaces, Marketplaces, and the Constitution: Shopping Malls and the First Amendment. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  42. Mazerolle, L., & Ransley, J. (2006). Third Party Policing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miller, P., & Rose, N. (1990). Governing economic life. Economy and Society, 19(1), 1–31. Scholar
  44. Mitchell, D. (2005). Property rights, the First Amendment and judicial anti-urbanism: The strange case of Virginia v. Hicks. Urban Geography, 26(7), 565–586. Scholar
  45. Mitchell, D., & Heynan, N. (2009). The geography of survival and the right to the city: Speculations on surveillance, legal innovation, and the criminalisation of intervention. Urban Geography, 30(6), 611–632. Scholar
  46. Mitchell, K. (2010). Ungoverned space: Global security and the geopolitics of broken windows. Political Geography, 29(5), 289–297. Scholar
  47. Morgan, G., & Rushton, P. (2013). Banishment in the Early Atlantic World: Convicts, Rebels and Slaves. London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  48. Palmer, D., & Warren, I. (2013). Zonal banning and public order in urban Australia. In R. K. Lippert & K. Walby (Eds.), Policing Cities: Urban Securitisation and Regulation in a 21st Century World (pp. 79–96). Milton Park and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Palmer, D., & Warren, I. (2014). The pursuit of exclusion through zonal banning. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 47(3), 429–446. Scholar
  50. Pasquino, P. (1991). Theatrum politicum. The genealogy of capital—Police and the state of prosperity. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (pp. 105–118). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  51. Petty, J. (2016). The London spikes controversy: Homelessness, urban securitisation and the question of ‘hostile architecture’. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 5(1), 67–81. Scholar
  52. Poiner, G., & Jack, S. (Eds.). (2007). The Limits of Location: Creating a Colony. Sydney: Sydney University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Raustiala, K. (2009). Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? The Evolution of Territoriality in American Law. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Rose, N., & Miller, P. (1992). Political power beyond the state: Problematics of government. The British Journal of Sociology, 43(2), 173–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schuilenburg, M. (2015). The Securitization of Society: Crime, Risk, and Social Order. New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sevilla-Buitrago, A. (2014). Central Park against the streets: The enclosure of public space cultures in mid-nineteenth century New York. Social & Cultural Geography, 15(2), 151–172. Scholar
  57. Shearing, C., & Stenning, P. C. (1983). Private security: Implications for social control. Social Problems, 30(5), 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Singer, J. W. (1996). No right to exclude: Public accommodations and private property. Northwestern University Law Review, 90(4), 1283–1497.Google Scholar
  59. Søgaard, T. F., Houborg, E., & Pedersen, M. M. (2017). Drug policing assemblages: Repressive drug policies and the banning of drug users in Denmark’s club land. International Journal of Drug Policy, 41(March), 118–125. Scholar
  60. Staeheli, L. A., & Mitchell, D. (2008). The People’s Property? Power, Politics, and the Public. London and New York: Routledge/Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  61. Strakosch, E. (2015). Neoliberal Indigenous Policy: Settler Colonialism and the ‘Post-Welfare’ State. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Valverde, M. (2005a). Taking ‘land use’ seriously: Toward an ontology of municipal law. Law Text Culture, 9, 34–59.Google Scholar
  63. Valverde, M. (2005b). Authorising the production of urban moral order: Appellate courts and their knowledge games. Law and Society Review, 39(2), 419–456. Scholar
  64. Valverde, M. (2015). Chronotopes of Law: Jurisdiction, Scale and Governance. Milton Park: Routledge-Glasshouse.Google Scholar
  65. Valverde, M. (2016). Ad hoc governance: Public authorities and North American local infrastructure in historical perspective. In M. Brady & R. K. Lippert (Eds.), Governing Practices: Neoliberalism, Governmentality and the Ethnographic Imaginary (pp. 199–217). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  66. Veuthey, A., & Freeburn, L. (2015). The fight against hooliganism in England: Insights for other jurisdictions? Melbourne Journal of International Law, 16(1), 203–254.Google Scholar
  67. 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. Scholar
  68. Walby, K., & Lippert, R. K. (Eds.). (2014). Corporate Security in the 21st Century: Theory and Practice in International Perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  69. Warren, I. (2002). Governance, protest and sport: An Australian perspective. Entertainment Law, 1(1), 67–94. Scholar
  70. Warren, I., & Palmer, D. (2015). Global Criminology. Pyrmont: Thomson Reuters/Law Book Company.Google Scholar
  71. White, R. (2017). The four ways of eco-global criminology. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 6(1), 8–22. Scholar
  72. White, R., & Sutton, A. (1995). Crime prevention, urban space and social exclusion. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 31(1), 82–99. Scholar
  73. Wikimedia Commons. (2015). File:Anti.svg. Retrieved May 14, 2017, from
  74. Wikimedia Commons. (2017). File:‘Prescribed Area’.jpg. Retrieved May 14, 2017, from
  75. Zedner, L. (2015). Penal subversions: When is a punishment not punishment, who decides and on what grounds? Theoretical Criminology, 20(1), 3–20. Scholar


  1. Forbes v New South Wales Trotting Club Ltd (1979) 25 ALR 1.Google Scholar
  2. Hicks v Commonwealth of Virginia (2000) 535 SE2d 678.Google Scholar
  3. Hinkley v Star City Pty Ltd (2011) 284 ALR 154.Google Scholar
  4. Owens v Normanton Liquor Accord & Others [2012] QSC 118.Google Scholar
  5. R v Haverhill Pub Watch and Chief Constable of Suffolk Constabulary [2009] EWHC 2441.Google Scholar
  6. R v SA (2011) ABPC 269.Google Scholar
  7. R v SA (2012) ABCA 323.Google Scholar
  8. R v SA (2014) ABCA 191.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ian Warren
    • 1
  • Darren Palmer
    • 2
  1. 1.Deakin UniversityGeelongAustralia
  2. 2.Alfred Deakin Institute for Citizenship and Globalisation, Deakin UniversityGeelongAustralia

Personalised recommendations