Auditable Community The Moral Order of Megan's Law

Criminological research identifies the turn to community as part of a broader move away from the welfarist social. Yet, while we now have significant research on how community is made governmental within crime prevention strategies, we know less about how the zone of community is itself rendered governable-how neoliberal programmes delimit and control the moral order of the community they are said to promote. This paper focuses on the community notification of sex offenders in the United States, often known as Megan's Law. Drawing on research that identifies the increasing role of audit technologies for achieving control within organizations, this paper explores how Megan's Law similarly relies on a logic of audit to identify, manage and control the symbolic zone of community.

[1]  S. Shapiro The Social Control of Impersonal Trust , 1987, American Journal of Sociology.

[2]  T. Gilbert Towards a politics of trust. , 1998, Journal of advanced nursing.

[3]  K. Stenson Community policing as a governmental technology , 1993 .

[4]  M. Richter Grounded Cosmopolitans and the Bureaucratic Field: Musical Performance at Two Yogyakarta State Institutions , 2006 .

[5]  Pierre Bourdieu,et al.  The Force of Law: Toward a Sociology of the Juridical Field , 1987 .

[6]  J. Simon Megan's Law: Crime and Democracy in Late Modern America , 2000, Law & Social Inquiry.

[7]  Pierre Bourdieu,et al.  Rethinking the state: Genesis and structure of the bureaucratic field , 1994 .

[8]  A. Crawford Questioning Appeals to Community within Crime Prevention and Control , 1999 .

[9]  N. Rose The death of the social? Re-figuring the territory of government , 1996 .

[10]  Eric R. Lotke Politics and Irrelevance: Community Notification Statutes , 1997 .

[11]  Lucia Zedner,et al.  Discourses of community in criminal justice , 1995 .

[12]  F. Olsen The Family and the Market: A Study of Ideology and Legal Reform , 1983 .

[13]  K. Stenson Sovereignty, biopolitics and the local government of crime in Britain , 2005 .

[14]  N. Rose Government and control , 2000 .

[15]  B. Santos Law and community: the changing nature of State power in late capitalism , 1980 .

[16]  Jessica R. Evans Vigilance and Vigilantes , 2003 .

[17]  J. Simon Managing the monstrous: Sex offenders and the new penology. , 1998 .

[18]  Dany Lacombe Reforming Foucault: a critique of the social control thesis , 1996 .

[19]  A. Crawford ‘Contractual Governance’ of Deviant Behaviour , 2003 .

[20]  R. Ericson Rules in policing , 2007 .

[21]  P. Bourdieu From the King's House to the Reason of State: A Model of the Genesis of the Bureaucratic Field , 2004 .

[22]  K. Stenson,et al.  Crime control and local governance: The struggle for sovereignty in advanced liberal polities , 2003 .

[23]  Abril R. Bedarf Examining Sex Offender Community Notification Laws , 1995 .

[24]  V. Quinsey,et al.  Sexual Predators and Social Policy , 1998, Crime and Justice.

[25]  Michael Power,et al.  Making things auditable , 1996 .

[26]  P. Bourdieu Esprits d'Etat [Genèse et structure du champ bureaucratique] , 1993 .

[27]  Michael Power,et al.  Auditing and the production of legitimacy , 2003 .

[28]  L. Wacquant L'ascension de l'État pénal en Amérique , 1998 .

[29]  Michael Power,et al.  Evaluating the Audit Explosion , 2003 .

[30]  A. Giddens Risk and Responsibility , 1999 .

[31]  Ron Levi,et al.  The mutuality of risk and community: the adjudication of community notification statutes , 2000 .