Editing Social control (section)

===Techniques===
[[Law]] is a technique used for the purposes of social control.<ref name="Roscoe Pound">{{cite book |author=R. Pound|title=Social Control Through Law |publisher=Transaction Publishers |orig-year=1942 |isbn=9781560009160 |date=1997}}</ref> For example, there are certain laws regarding appropriate sexual relationships; these are largely based on societal values. Historically, homosexuality has been criminalised in the West. In modern times, due to shifts in societal values, Western societies have mostly decriminalized homosexual relations. However, there are still laws regarding age of consent and incest, as these are still deemed as issues in society that require means of control.<ref>{{cite book|title=Roffee, James (2015). When Yes Actually Means Yes in Rape Justice. 72–91|doi=10.1057/9781137476159_5|chapter = When Yes Actually Means Yes|year = 2015|last1 = Roffee|first1 = James A.|pages=72–91 |isbn=9781137476159}}</ref>

A mechanism of social control occurs through the use of selective incentives.<ref>B. Janky, K. Takacs -  [http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Efficient+and+inefficient+social+control+in+collective+action.-a0284936605 Report] published by CEU Political Science Journal September 1, 2010 [Retrieved 2015-12-04]</ref> Selective incentives are [[private goods]],<ref name="P. Oliver"/> which are gifts or services,<ref>Harvard University Press - [http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674537514 summary of The Logic of Collective Action Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, by Mancur Olson, Jr.] Harvard Economic Studies 124 [Retrieved 2015-12-04]</ref> made available to people depending on whether they do or don't contribute to the good of a group, collective, or the common good. If people do contribute, they are rewarded, if they don't they are punished. [[Mancur Olson]] gave rise to the concept in its first instance (cf. ''[[The Logic of Collective Action]]'').<ref name="P. Oliver">{{cite book |author=P. Oliver|title=Abstract|publisher=published by [[Blackwell Publishing Ltd.]] January 14, 2013 |doi=10.1002/9780470674871.wbespm185|chapter = Selective Incentives|year = 2013|isbn = 9781405197731}}</ref>

Oberschall, in his work, identifies three elements to the pragmatics of social control as they exist in our current society. These are, confrontational control, such as  [[riot control]] and [[crowd control]], preventative measures to deter non-normal behaviors, which is legislation outlining expected boundaries for behavior,  and measures complementary to preventative measures, which amount to punishment of criminal offences.<ref name="Anthony Oberschall">{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JT8761v8-x4C&pg=PA111 |author=Anthony Oberschall|title=Social Movements: Ideologies, Interests, and Identities|publisher=Transaction Publishers |date=1995 |isbn=9781412834360}}</ref>

Cities can implement park exclusion orders (prohibiting individuals from frequenting some or all of the parks in a city for an extended period due to a previous infraction), trespass laws (privatizing areas generally thought of as public so police can choose which individuals to interrogate), and off-limit orders (Stay Out of Drug Areas (SODA) and Stay Out of Areas of Prostitution (SOAP) that obstruct access to these spaces). These are just a few of the new social control techniques cities use to displace certain individuals to the margins of society.<ref name="eight" /> Several common themes are apparent in each of these control mechanisms. The first is the ability to spatially constrain individuals in their own city. Defying any of the above statutes is a criminal offense resulting in possible incarceration.<ref name="eight" /> Though not all individuals subjected to an exclusion order obey it, these individuals are, at the very least, spatially hindered through decreased mobility and freedom throughout the city.<ref name="ten" /> This spatial constrain on individuals leads to disruption and interference in their lives. Homeless individuals generally frequent parks since the area provides benches for sleeping, public washrooms, occasional public services, and an overall sense of security by being near others in similar conditions. Privatizing areas such as libraries, public transportation systems, college campuses, and commercial establishments that are generally public gives the police permission to remove individuals as they see fit, even if the individual has ethical intent in the space. Off-limit orders attempting to keep drug addicts, prostitutes, and others out of concentrated areas of drug and sex crimes commonly restricts these individuals' ability to seek social services beneficial to rehabilitation, since these services are often located within the SODA and SOAP territories.<ref name="ten" />

====Broken windows theory in the United States====
In the United States, early societies were able to easily expel individuals deemed undesirable from public space through [[vagrancy (people)|vagrancy]] laws and other forms of banishment. In the 1960s and 1970s, however, these exclusion orders were denounced as unconstitutional in America<ref name="nine">Herbert, Steve and Katherine Beckett. 2009. Zoning out disorder: Assessing contemporary practices of urban social control. ''Studies in Law, Politics, and Society''. 47: 1–25.</ref> and consequently were rejected by the US Supreme Court.<ref name="eight">Beckett, Katherine and Steve Herbert. 2008. Dealing with disorder: Social control in the post-industrial city. ''Theoretical Criminology''. 12: 5–30.</ref> The introduction of [[broken windows theory]] in the 1980s transformed the concepts cities used to form policies, to circumvent the previous issue of unconstitutionality.<ref>Harcourt, Bernard and Jens Ludwig. 2005. "Broken windows: New evidence from New York City and a five-city [[social experiment]]". ''The University of Chicago Law Review''. 73: 271-320.</ref> According to the theory, the environment of a particular space signals its health to the public, including to potential vandals. By maintaining an organized environment, individuals are dissuaded from causing disarray in that particular location. However, environments filled with disorder, such as broken windows or graffiti, indicate an inability for the neighborhood to supervise itself, therefore leading to an increase in criminal activity.<ref name="tented">Ranasinghe, Prashan. 2010. Public disorder and its relation to the community-civility-consumption triad: A case study on the uses and users of contemporary urban public space. ''Urban Studies''. 48: 1925–1943.</ref> Instead of focusing on the built environment, policies substantiated by the Broken Windows Theory overwhelmingly emphasize undesirable human behavior as the environmental disorder prompting further crime.<ref name="eight" /> The civility laws, originating in the late 1980s and early 1990s, provide an example of the usage of this latter aspect of the Broken Windows Theory as legitimization for discriminating against individuals considered disorderly in order to increase the sense of security in urban spaces.<ref name="nine" /> These civility laws effectively criminalize activities considered undesirable, such as sitting or lying on sidewalks, sleeping in parks, urinating or [[drinking in public]], and begging,<ref name="ten">Beckett, Katherine and Steve Herbert. 2010. "Penal boundaries: Banishment and the expansion of punishment". ''Law and Social Inquiry''. 35: 1–38.</ref> in an attempt to force the individuals doing these and other activities to relocate to the margins of society.<ref name="eight" /> Not surprisingly then, [[criminalization of homelessness|these restrictions disproportionally affect the homeless]].<ref name="eight" />

Individuals are deemed undesirable in urban space because they do not fit into [[norm (social)|social norms]], which causes unease for many residents of certain neighborhoods.<ref>England, Marcia. Stay out of drug areas: Drugs, othering, and regulation of public space in Seattle, Washington. ''Space and Polity''. 12: 197–213.</ref> This fear has been deepened by the Broken Windows Theory and exploited in policies seeking to remove undesirables from visible areas of society.<ref name="tented" /> In the [[post-industrial society|post-industrial city]], concerned primarily with retail, tourism, and the service sector,<ref name="eight" /> the increasing pressure to create the image of a livable and orderly city has no doubt aided in the most recent forms of social control.<ref name="nine" /> These new techniques involve even more intense attempts to spatially expel certain individuals from urban space since the police are entrusted with considerably more power to investigate individuals, based on suspicion rather than on definite evidence of illicit actions.<ref name="ten" />