Down on ASBOs

Suppose you have a justice system which allows you to stop people from doing certain activities that are not covered under any specific law, but which threaten people's safety. A kind of "Stop taking the piss, Not Necessarily Otherwise Specified" court order. Sounds pretty useful, right?

Except...can you spot the problem?

If you guessed "not covered under any specific law" you guessed right, and you get to wear the cloggs of clever.

"Stop taking the piss, Not Necessarily Otherwise Specified" orders (or ASBOs, as they are more commonly known) are social justice issues because they can be slapped on people who have not been charged with any crime. They're purpose is to restrict dodge activity that is hard to prosecute under other laws, like stalking or being disorderly (although actually, there are laws to prosecute these behaviours). But in practice they tend to be used either in cases where the behaviour is already illegal (eg, stalking, underage drinking) or where there is a good reason that the behaviour is not criminalised (like: it would be about seventeen different kinds of immoral to make it illegal).

Can you guess who is most likely to be affected by ASBO abuse? Hint: consider the latter case.

If you guessed "people who deal with societal oppression", then you get to wear the cloggs of clever and the pants of smart.

A couple of weeks ago, Kate posted about the Met "naming and shaming" sex workers on their website. Why had the Met done this? It's part of a policy of "naming and shaming" people with ASBOs. From the Guardian article:

A Met spokesman said the asbos against the Newham women had been used as a last resort because they were persistent offenders, and that decisions to publicise the identities of people issued with asbos were made on a case-by-case basis.

"Persistent offenders"? So, let's see what crimes the women had been convicted of (multiple times, from the sound of "persistent")?

Sex workers and their support groups have condemned a police operation to "out" prostitutes even when they have not been convicted of any crime.

[...]

Police took photographs of the Polish women, who were not charged.

Wait, you mean they weren't convicted of a crime? Not even charged with a crime? So in what sense are they "persistent offenders"?

Ah, well, you see, they are sex workers, which means have received money in exchange for some kind of sexual interaction. An activity which is totally legal. And which they have engaged in more than once.

(Other activities which are legal, in case you were wondering, include: surfing, drinking tea, and writing about how pissed off you are at the Met.)

On the other hand, activities which are not legal include: sex trafficking, rape, and sexual assaults.

On top of the obvious humiliation and threat to the two women involved of having their personal information broadcast to the world, the implication for other sex workers is huge. The Met in its infinite wisdom has dedicated itself to harassing sex workers, instead of being active in preventing and prosecuting violence against women and against sex workers. This policy creates fear in people who might well have been trafficked, raped, assaulted, etc, and cannot now go to the police because it seems they're more likely to get an ASBO than police support. This policy only hurts people who need police support the most.

Also: it's not just sex workers who are affected by societal biases in the use of ASBOs. The British Institute for Brain Injured Children found that more than one third of children with ASBOs have a mental disability.

Like I said: hurts people who need police support the most.

--IP