[Identification of the Problem]





A high-frequency emitting device, known as the ‘Mosquito’, is currently being marketed as a non-intrusive solution to prevent loitering, vandalism, violence and anti-social behavior from youth in both public and private spaces. Specifically, the main purpose of this technology is to deter young people from gathering in groups near certain designated public or private areas, such as parks, shops, malls, stores, schools and small businesses. The device has been controversial since its inception, mainly because of the argument by youth organizations and human rights groups that it indiscriminately targets young people, infringes basic human rights and may be categorized as a sonic weapon (Crystal, 2012). On the other hand, it has been praised to be effective as a protective mechanism for residents and business owners from unruly youth, reducing incidences of property damage, violence, vandalism and preventing more serious crimes (Peacock, 2008).

There is a tendency in society towards labeling all youth as a risky group, incorporating a ‘broken windows’ model of policing, enacting restrictive policies and accepting a biased schema that all youth are unruly, dangerous and potentially criminal when in fact youth are more ‘at risk’ at being victimized (Perreault and Brennan, 2009). It has been shown that uninvolved policing, exclusion of community involvement and focus on only violent crime resulted in loitering becoming a serious problem and led to a perception that crime was rampant, such as in New York in the 1980’s (Bratton and Kelling, 1998). Following the policies of policing ‘on call’ rather than policing the streets, officers tended to sit in their patrol cars awaiting a directive and were instructed not to involve themselves in any public disturbances, which led to an increased perception of dangerousness in the city (Bratton and Kelling, 1998). Within the context of the ‘Mosquito’, there is tension between groups supporting and opposing the use of this technology, with the debate centered upon the limits of individual freedom versus public and private safety. The dispute brings into focus the inclination of media and society to criminalize youth, control their behavior, and restrict access to public spaces under the guise of a neoliberal concept of a risk society. On the other hand, a workable solution, compromising the interests of both public and youth can be achieved without the use of short-term technological solutions, but through a long-term investment in social programming, family support and increasing economic opportunities. However, accountable policing that involves cooperation with the community, increased visible patrols, diversion of youth from the criminal justice system, integration with social institutions and investment in development programs is crucial to public safety and reduction in crime.

Generally, society does not want to deal with the responsibility of protecting themselves or their livelihood, delegating this role to the criminal justice system, most visibly in the form of a police force (Kasler, 1992). In response to sensationalized accounts of youth crime, both public and policy-makers advocate strict measures to control ‘law-abiding youth’ (Hogeveen, 2009). A parallel comparison can be made to the never-ending debate on gun control laws in both the United States and Canada. The argument from anti-gun law lobbyists is that those individuals inclined to break the law will illegally purchase and possess a gun regardless of the laws in place to strictly regulate them (David, 2000). These laws will only remove guns from the hands of citizens willing to obtain and use them legally (Clement, 2013). As such, policy-makers attempt to restrict the behavior of ‘law-abiding youth’ through laws, devices and monitoring techniques such as curfews, whereas those inclined to or are pushed into engaging in deviant acts by social circumstances, peer pressure or lack of strong bonds, will do so regardless of norms, rules, devices or laws (Pierre and Terry, 1995).

The media depicts rare, one-time cases as the norm, which leads the public to internalize images of youth as deviant, unmanageable and potentially dangerous. By being constantly bombarded with stereotypic representations of youth and crime, the public then demands tougher and harsher punishments to curb a rising crime rate, which in fact remains at a stable decline in Canada (Statcan, 2011). ‘Moral panic’ leads to the support of the construction of new prisons, hiring of more police officers and demands of mandatory minimums as well as longer sentences (Cohen, Killingbeck, 2001). However, the issue here is a two-fold one: while a free media is important to a democratic society, individuals place too much faith in the legitimacy of its intentions in providing informative, critical news. Placing trust in an institution that uses sensationalized accounts to conspicuously shape public policy without providing truthful, representative information results in a skewed perception of dangerousness and leads the public to focus on everything as being a potential risk (Rose, 2001). The ‘Mosquito’ is not just a simple device with a simple purpose, but a manifestation of the securitization of a risk society wherein each member becomes preoccupied with the policing of public and private space, targeting unwanted populations and limiting freedom of association (Rose, 2001).

Identification of Value Criteria or Ideological Premises

A transfer of power to state institutions creates a widespread alienation of the individuals within society from ties to their communities, resulting in anomie (Durkheim). Coupled with the phenomena of neo-liberal capitalism, responsibilization and the advent of a risk society, individualism is promoted along with the culturally approved goals of materialistic gain (Marx, Rose, 2001). Sanctioning certain goals as legitimate and disapproving others creates a void between those individuals with available means and those without them (Merton,). Deviant behavior can be perceived as the result of economic inequality and a conflict of interests between individual members of society, who experience anomie because of limited legitimate opportunities and weak ties to their community or family. Especially in large, sprawling urban areas, it becomes difficult for individuals to bond with bureaucratic institutions that manage populaces through rules, regulations and discipline rather than compromise, support and understanding. Society becomes a swarming crowd of individuals that are displaced by negative liberty, fear of crime, lack of trust and over-reliance on the criminal justice system to provide solutions (Herbert, 2001). As Foucault has mentioned, the role of the state is to discipline and punish while leading society to accept the rule of law as a natural order of things, so that they come to internally govern and monitor their own behavior with minimal external influence (Foucault, 1974). Members of society become preoccupied with investing in their own personal safety while a sense of individualism fragments obligations between persons to work together towards involving themselves in maintaining the accountability of the media and the justice system.

Most of the accused come from poor, disadvantaged families and are usually visible minorities. Whereas middle class and upper middle class youth can engage in deviant acts in private spaces, out of the purview of police, lower class youth engage in the same behaviors in public spaces, leading to more visibility and higher chances of arrest. Public spaces are no longer considered venues for free association, but commercial avenues on which traffic should be unimpeded by undesirable populations, such as youth, homeless or aggressive panhandlers. Active and legitimate citizenship is no longer defined by civic participation or association, but by being a upstanding consumer and engaging in the capitalist economy.

The common response to loitering has been to pass laws aimed at implementing more aggressive policing, which has proven in Chicago to result in racial profiling of Hispanic and black youth and incidences of police misconduct (Anonymous, 2000). In the wake of the previous anti-loitering law, thousands of innocent youth were arrested, charged and tried in court without due cause. The new law would permit police to issue a warning to clear an area within three hours or face arrest (Strausberg). In Washington, two proposed bills would toughen curfews by implementing fines for parents whose children under seventeen were out after ten at night, with the reasoning that panhandlers and loiterers scare away customers from small businesses (Pierre and Neal, 1995). According to the former mayor of New York, Rudolph Giuliani, this kind of liberal philosophy resulted in widespread crime across the city in the 1990’s and only a ‘broken windows’ approach to policing resulted in significant improvement in public safety (Moore, 1998). According to a deterrence-focused view of crime, being too lax in public policy and allowing youth to loiter around public and private places leads to deviant behavior, such as substance abuse, violence and vandalism (DiNardo, 2003). The Ottawa Police Service recently introduced a Directed Action Response Team to handle youth deviance within the community by tackling any deviant behavior engaged in by youth to reduce incidences of petty crime (DiNardo, 2003). However, the Ontario Play Works program demonstrated that youth need space, support and freedom to engage in the community to develop personal and social responsibility, which in turn results in less crime and more civic participation rather than intensive monitoring and policing (Price, 2006).

Across Europe, Canada and the United States another device labeled ‘SonicScreen’, similar in function to the ‘Mosquito’ is increasingly being installed within the vicinity of public parks to prevent vandalism from teenagers (Bruton, 2010). The comments made by people on this issue on forums can be used as qualitative evidence in that they represent the practical viewpoint of the public, which is sometimes missing from media and official accounts. Not all youth are necessarily involved in or prone to crime or vandalism. By imposing restrictions, such as curfews, conditions and sonic weapons the freedom of youth to associate, gather together and spend time at ‘public places’ becomes severely limited. This constitutes not only an infringement of fundamental civic liberties, such as freedom of association but of the right ‘to do something’ or positive liberty (Bauman, 2001). Another argument is that shop owners and businesses have an inherent right to protect their property and source of profit, with a non-intrusive sonic device as an alternative to constant policing (Otewell, 2008). The European Union has recently concluded that the device violates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (Wach, 2010), but is a law or conclusion reached by an institution replace common sense notions of what is right or wrong? For example, based on the individual and social learning-bonding theories of crime, a potential young offender will decide to commit a deviant act because of individual motives, association with peers or lack of bonds to community which leads to disrespect of public space. Many youth will feel pushed out and targeted by the community and pulled into acts of deviance to protest their treatment by adults. A device will only serve as a temporary measure to increase perceptions of safety and an ‘easy fix’ to a visible problem.

Assessment of the Alternatives

Several problems are evident with the reasoning behind the installation of such devices as there is with a ‘broken windows’ style of aggressive policing: they will ultimately displace crime to other places without addressing root causes, deter potential customers a majority of which are youth, infringe indiscriminately on fundamental civil liberties and may have unknown health consequences. The devices were shown to have temporary negative affects on the health of babies, small children and those suffering from autism (Institute of Sound and Vibration Research, 2009). An act of vandalism is assumed to result from loitering, when in fact it is caused by limited opportunities and venues of alternative expression or is intended to be an act of protest. For example, graffiti is can be considered an act of artistic creativity or a horrible defacement of property, depending on its context and subjective perception. When a law in New York was implemented directing that graffiti be regularly removed within a day of the act, graffiti artists moved to other places, abandoning areas where they could not admire their work (Bratton and Kelling, 1998).

By installing devices such as the Mosquito, businesses send out a message that youth are not welcome, effectively an act of segregation of certain populations from those considered fully privileged adults and deserving of more rights. Youth are essentially treated not as equal members of society, but under deserving and irresponsible persons. At 2007, Canada had about ten million people under the age of twenty-five, making up thirty percent of the total population. In terms of business, this makes up one of the largest sources of profit for companies, small businesses and shops. As of 2011, in Canada police reported 135,600 youth aged 12-17 accused of a crime under the Criminal Code with an average of 80 youth per 10,000 population aged 12-17 (Statcan, 2012). What about the rest of the youth population between the ages of 12-17, which makes up about 10 million people who have not been accused of any crime? (Statcan, 2007).

The Mosquito device is installed outside a building and emits a high frequency sound during certain hours, periodic intervals or on a constant basis, that people over the age of twenty-five cannot hear, but agitates youth (Block, 2006). Storeowners defend the use of the device as a means of protecting themselves from being harassed or prevent teenagers from intimidating customers. However, youth form a large proportion of customers across Canada since about 55.4% of youth between the ages of 15-24 are employed, which totals on average 5 million youth who are currently working and have income to spend (Statcan, 2011). By employing such a device, many youth may be discouraged to spend their money at an establishment that presumptively targets those who have not committed any crime.

A first possible alternative to using the Mosquito device to unnecessarily target youth is to grant the same legal rights to these individuals provided to adults. For example, rather than attempting to push youth away from an area, a community should establish a variety of options for youth to spend time constructively. Rather than arrest or detain for graffiti, officers should have the power to recommend that the youth attend an art class, in a government-sponsored center, where perhaps that individual’s art may be transformed by the context in which it is created from vandalism to a work of art. Also, broken windows policing has been proven to not reduce levels of actual crime, but to increase public perceptions of safety through the elimination of disorder, visible interactive policing and removal of unwanted and marginalized individuals. These individuals will continue to engage in the same activities, but in different places. Essentially, the crime problem will be shifted to other communities, ghettoized areas will be created to house unwanted populations or gates communities employ similar devices (Valverde, 2009).

Recommendations

A traditional model of policing, employed during the 1970’s-1980’s was incident and response oriented, which involved responding to specific calls or events as they occurred with limited information gathering and a centralized, hierarchical structure (Kelling and Coles, 1996). According to Kelling and Coles, disorder on a low, petty level left unattended is a breeding ground for more deviance and crime (Kelling and Coles, 1996). Police tended to ignore low-level victimless crimes, such as prostitution, panhandling and drug use and concentrate on serious, violent crime, which led to substantial growth of inner city crime in cities like Detroit and Chicago (Kelling and Coles, 1996). The broken windows model emphasized more police involvement with petty crime and deviance through foot patrols, but zero tolerance policing resulted in aggressive tactics such as stop and search, more arrests for minor nuisances, and evictions but did not actually reduce crime rates, only the perception of increased safety and positive public opinion (Kelling and Coles, 1996).

There are criticisms that civic liberties are infringed by unwarranted stops, searches and arrests without reasonable grounds, disorderly individuals are arrested for interference with commercial interests or affluent residents while white-collar crime or environmental crime is left unanswered (Valverde, 2002). The Mosquito is being employed as a preventative measure against disorder or public nuisance caused by youth, before it even occurs. This serves a basis for police attention even if a crime has not been committed. The model assumes that certain deviant actions committed in public will lead to crime and the best way to prevent it is through ‘tough’ intervention by the criminal justice system, installation of private security devices, ghettoization and monitoring through curfews to control youth (Valverde, 2002). The sonic device has been shown to reduce acts of vandalism and loitering in a given area, but no statistics are available as to how much crime has been displaced to other areas. There are no indications that the actual youth crime rate has significantly decreased after implementation of the device. Evidence shows that only incidences of public nuisance, loitering and vandalism are reduced within a certain area, but the problem is not completely eliminated (Delaney, 2008). The right of homeowners, businesses and communities to use the device is questionable because it infringes on the rights of others under the guise of public safety (Irish Examiner, 2007). The situation a reminiscent of a strategy in New York of installing remote door locks and ringers on stores to give storeowners the right to either allow or prevent entry, which led to subjective and discriminatory selection (Ayres, 2003). Ultimately, the solution did not prevent loitering or petty theft, but to exclusion of law-abiding individuals based on race and age.

"FAQs | Mosquito teen deterrent". (n.d.)._ Compound Security Inc._

"Irish Examiner – 2007/05/30: Using mosquito devices on children could constitute assault, says ombudsman". (n.d.).

Adams, Jim. (2011). Pitching out teen vandals._ Star Tribune._

Anonymous. (2000). The new anti-loitering law and law enforcement._ Chicago Defender._

Ayres, Ian. (2003). Pervasive Prejudice? Unconventional Evidence of Race and Gender Discrimination._ Ohio Northern University Law Review._

Block, Melissa. (2006). Teens Turn 'Repeller' into Adult-Proof Ringtone._ NPR._

Bratton, William. & Kelling, George, L. (1998). “Declining Crime Rates: Insiders’ Views of the New York City Story._ The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology._ 88 (4).

Bruton, Bob. (2010). Mosquito device to control park safety could really fly._ The Barrie Examiner._

Children and Youth, 2007. (n.d.)._ Statcan._

Clement, Scott. (2013). Everything you need to know about Americans’ views on guns — in 7 easy steps._ Washington Post._

Cohen, S. (1973). Folk Devils and Moral Panics.

Crystal, Garry. (2012). Is the Mosquito Alarm an Infringement on Human Rights?._ Civil Rights Movement UK._

Delaney, Joan. (2008). "‘Mosquito’ Prompts Teens to Buzz Off"._ The Epoch Times._

DiNardo, Luciano. (2003). Listless loitering is a prelude to crime._ The Ottawa Citizen._

Doob, Anthony. & Webster, Cheryl, M. (2005). The Liberal Veil: Revisiting Canadian Penality._ The New Punitiveness._ 85-100.

Herbert, Steve. (2001). Policing The Contemporary City: Fixing Broken Windows or Shoring Up Neo-Liberalism?._ Theoretical Criminology._ 5 (4).

Hogeveen, Bryan. (2009). Street Involved Youth: Conditions, Consequences and Interventions.

Institute Of Soun and ibration Research. (2009). Damage to human hearing by airborne sound of very high frequency or ultrasonic frequency._ Health and Safety Executive UK._

Juristat. (n.d.). Youth Crime, 2011._ Statcan._

Kasler, Peter. (1992). Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals._ Firearms and Liberty._

Kelling, George, L. & Coles, Catherine. (1996). Fixing Broken Windows.

Killingbeck, Donna. (2001). THE ROLE OF TELEVISION NEWS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE AS A "MORAL PANIC._ Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture._ 8 (3), 186-202.

Lesley, Simpson. (1998). Police Take aim at teen criminals: New emphasis on risk._ The Spectator._

Moore, Charles, M. (1998). Liberals Just don't get the message: Cracking down on crime makes communities safer._ 1998._ Calgary Herald

Munch, Christopher. (2012). Youth correctional statistics in Canada, 2010/2011._ Statcan._

Peacock, Louisa. (2008). Anti-yob 'mosquito' device backed by British Retail Consortium"._ Personnel Today._

Perreault, Samuel. & Brennan, Shannon. (2009). Criminal victimization in Canada, 2009._ Juristat._

Pierre, Robert. & Neal, Terry. (1995). Council Panel Approves 2 Crime Bills; Legislation Would Toughen Curfew, Restrict Loitering._ The Washington Post._

Price, Marion. (2006). Not Enough Play in Your Community? ONTARIO'S PLAY WORKS PROGRAM MAY HAVE THE ANSWER._ Municipal World._

Quebec convenience store chain tests 'Mosquito' to get teen loiterers to buzz off. (2009)._ CBC News._

Rose, Nikolas. (2001). Government and Control._ British Journal of Criminology._ 40

Steffenhagen, Janet. (2012). Vancouver board of education to discuss anti-mosquito devices as vandalism control._ The Vancouver Sun._

Thomas, David, C. (2000). Canada And the United States: Differences that Count, Second Edition._ Broadview Press._

Valverde, Mariana. (2002). Governing through security.

Valverde, Mariana. (2009). Laws of the Street._ City and Society._ 21 (2).

Wach, Peter. (2010). Prohibiting the marketing and use of the “Mosquito” youth dispersal device﻿._ Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe._

Wilson, Dru. (1993). Commissioners to study loitering law/ Unincorporated areas' youth crime targeted._ Colorado Springs Gazette._