This recognition of the consequences of a persistent BBA, which underpins the case for the new SBA measures, has fundamentally reinvented the entire jurisprudence of summary justice into a paradigm of presumed crime control. All this happened about 5 years after the introduction of the first ASB measures; The BSO has thus served as a Trojan horse for the reform of the entire criminal justice system. In addition, the NAC`s policy agenda was quickly followed by the broader Justice Gap initiative (Home Office, 2002). Tony Blair confirmed this in his speech on the Criminal Justice Action Plan of 10 January 2006: “ASB Act . occurred when general conduct, and not specific individual offences, was punishable. This has completely reversed the burden of proof” (Blair, 2006). The proposal began to form that the criminal justice system and the Ministry of the Interior itself were “not fit for purpose”. In the same speech in 2006, Tony Blair commented on the mistake of a criminal justice system that “fights 21st century crime using 19th century methods”, even though many of the key elements of the more robust alternative to fighting crime had already been put in place. A broader justification emphasizing the need for the ASB strategy is the principle of “collectivization of harm,” which emerged with Frank Field`s provocative book Neighbours from Hell (2003). Field argued: “The distinguishing feature of the SBA is that each instance alone does not justify a counterclaim.

In its regularity, ASB exercises its destructive power” (Field, 2003, 45). For the NAC, this is essentially a liberating principle, the usual criminal law framework (i.e. tort + culpability = responsibility and basis for criminal intervention) does not have to apply, as each individual case of the conduct complained of does not have to be a criminal offence. As Hansen et al. (2003) have established; The problem is the cumulative effects of antisocial activities. An important part of the problem was the shortcomings of the criminal justice system, particularly its failure to address the mismatch between “the accumulation of distress for victims and the non-cumulative impact on perpetrators” (Hansen et al., 2003, 82). This blind spot for the criminal justice system was a second feature of the aforementioned law enforcement deficit. A worksheet with two short activities. The first activity contains a complete definition of BSA with four missing words or terms. Four options are available that participants can classify correctly in the definition. The second activity asks the participant to list the behaviours that they believe represent the SBA. We have a clear feeling that “social” is not a fixed point of reference; It justified inclusion as well as exclusion, welfare or punishment, equality or freedom, the state or the market.

Conversely, “antisocial” does not have a fixed and simple meaning, but reflects broader interests and priorities. At present, it is closely linked to the root cause of disruption management, as existing social and community institutions seem unable to establish cohesion (in fact, they often fragment and weaken – and become antisocial), while the image of unconditional social well-being is often portrayed as a political burden. Instead of social assistance, we have seen a significant expansion of criminal justice interventions, a process described by many commentators as “governing by the management of crime and disruption” (Simon, 2007) and the criminalization of social policy (Squires, 2006). The discourse of the “social” offered a kind of ideological currency to justify social and political arrangements, policies, and relations. Indeed, just as commentators have discovered important characteristics of “decivilization” in Elias` broader process of civilization (on the one hand, the consolidation of the means of violence, on the other, the “rediscovery” of “interpersonal” violence: Fletcher, 1997; Squires, 2000, 29), many commentators have recognized a duality in the social. For example: Titmuss` own surprising observation that social welfare “could serve different masters” (Titmuss, 1964); Foucault`s detailed analysis of the inhumanity of many “prison reforms” (1977); Stedman-Jones` (1976) discussion of the abusive evacuation of poor children from London in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and E.P. Thompson`s various discussions of unjust (punitive and coercive) class-based legislation in the context of early modern industrial society (1963, 1975). There are undoubtedly many other contemporary examples (Squires, 1990). Such observations also remind us that the discourse of the social has always been profoundly nomadic and capable of migrating from democracy to society and culture in general, as Marcuse described it in 1964.

In other words, interventions, practices and social relationships can be profoundly unequal and “antisocial” in their consequences. The Housing (NI) (Amendment) Act 2010 also amended the grounds for possession listed in Schedule 3 of the Housing (NI) Ordinance 1983 to provide that a conviction for an offence involving the use of a dwelling for an unlawful or immoral purpose is grounds for possession. While the right not to be subjected to threats and intimidation, such as the “peaceful enjoyment” of privacy, was a long-standing principle of English law, the reference in the Public Order Act 1986 to words or behaviour that may cause “harassment, anxiety or distress” has led to a significant change in the criminalisation of harassment. The words and behaviour of individuals were now firmly back on the harassment agenda, and the offensive nature of this behaviour was relatively constructed – in terms of perception – or as it was probably perceived (proxy insult) by those exposed to it. As Burney describes, the phrase “harassment, alarm or distress” has found useful application in a number of areas with “influential legislative life and, ultimately, justification for some of New Labour`s most repressive policies” (Burney, 2006, 201). At this point, however, the considerations of offense were again linked to the pursuit of the peaceful enjoyment of one`s own property in the developing field of social housing management. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 empowered local authorities to deal with noise complaints in residential areas, noise abatement notices may be issued and failure to comply with this compliance is a criminal offence – anticipating the transition from civil to criminal law, which is a feature of the ASBO procedure. The particular form of the attempt to regulate the SBA, or perhaps the means by which the authorities have attempted to extend governance processes to the SBA, has elicited a number of comments from lawyers, mainly due to the civil-criminal hybrid nature of the established powers and criminologists. However, despite the bespoke combined nature of public-private regulation, there has been surprisingly little comment from political scientists. Rather, it fell to the new (criminological) theorists of governance (e.g. Crawford, 2002; Stenson and Edwards, 2003; Hughes, 2007) to expand on this discussion. Perhaps the rather modest policies of public and social administration, the regulation of public nuisances and the management of social housing are not the right place to look for “political science”.

It is suggested that Foucault was amused because, according to him, it was precisely in the low details of 19th century prison administration (schedules, regulations, classifications, registers and observations) that “the man of modern humanism was born” (Foucault, 1977). Perhaps the “dissatisfied youth” of 21st century disciplinary societies. In the nineteenth century, police performance targets, Ministry of Interior press releases, crime prevention panel agendas, youth integration projects, naming procedures and granular digitized CCTV recordings of contemporary societies. The 1996 report of the Audit Commission, Misspent Youth, which played a key role in New Labour`s juvenile justice reforms, called for administrative and actuarial solutions (streamlining, rapid change, early intervention and inter-agency partnerships) to the problems of the current juvenile justice system. Depending on the severity or perceived persistence of the youth`s offensive behaviour, distraction and bifurcation strategies were introduced. As part of this “distraction,” ASBOs were designed to be quick and effective in “nipping in the bud” evolving patterns of behavior. As Jack Straw, New Labour`s First Home Secretary, said in the foreword to No More Excuses, the White Paper introducing juvenile justice reforms, “We must break the link between juvenile delinquency and the disorder and serial burglar of the future” (Home Office, 1987). Indeed, as has been argued in several places (Brown, 2004; Squires & Stephen, 2005), which is based on Cohen`s hypothesis of “distraction from discipline” (Cohen, 1985), what is often described as a “distraction,” especially in the context of widespread moral panic over juvenile delinquency and disorder, often turns into a simple process of “web expansion” of delinquency. Exactly the same process has been observed in the field of housing management, as Burney notes, citing research by Hunter and Nixon (2001) and Brown (2004): the attribution of “multiple risk factors leads tenants to be labeled antisocial. Housing management creates antisocial behaviour” (Burney, 2005, 109).