View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Online Research @ Cardiff Dogs and the Criminology of Control A case study of contemporary policy making in England and Wales Claire Lawson BA(Hons), MSc, PhD SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES CARDIFF UNIVERSITY 2019 ii Abstract This thesis explores the nexus of criminology and public policy analysis in order to better understand and explain the policy making processes in relation to the control of dogs in society. It does this through an empirical study of policy responses to the phenomenon of ‘status’ and ‘dangerous’ dogs in England and Wales, primarily during the past three decades. An influential body of work has suggested an expanding trend in punitiveness within Western societies over the past few decades. At the forefront of sociological thinking in this field is David Garland’s Culture of Control that theorises that the advent of late- modernity, with its adjusted macro-social conditions, has ushered in this new approach to law and order. As a theoretical scaffold, grand theories such as these can be useful, but this case study also seeks to go further into the empirical particulars of policy making in order to understand how a culture of control unfolds in relation to the lesser-explored arena of dangerous dogs. The methodological elements employed were two-fold and included both an extensive documentary analysis (including academic work, policy documents and legislation) recounted via a history of the present, and a thematic analysis produced from the empirical data of key policy actors' accounts (involving a programme of semi-structured elite interviews, n=25) gained via my unique insider-researcher access as a professional member of the dog policy network. Findings suggest that widespread anxieties regarding the threat to public safety posed by dangerous dogs, have been addressed via draconian legislative measures, most notably breed specific legislation (BSL) designed to manipulate and control the dog population. Evidence that BSL and other control measures are not working, and that substitute harms are befalling dog owners and their pets, have been obscured by competition and ‘white noise’ within a chaotic policy network. Public debate, fuelled by high profile and disproportionate media stories, has intrinsically linked dangerous dogs with other risky, criminal and anti-social behaviours. This ‘othering’, coupled with expressive, symbolic and politicised policy making, has resulted in an overly-punitive culture of control for dogs and their owners in society. iii Acknowledgements There are many people to thank for their participation in, and support of, this research. I am so very grateful for all the opportunities and assistance I have had as a student of the School of Social Sciences at Cardiff University, but most importantly I must thank Professors Gordon Hughes and Trevor Jones for shepherding me through this seemingly mammoth task. I consider myself exceptionally lucky to have had two of the kindest, wittiest and knowledgeable supervisors there are. Your patience, encouragement and faith in me has been crucial to my ability to stay the distance. I will miss your guidance, not to mention mulling over the state of British politics and chatting about our dogs. I also want to thank my progress reviewer Professor Tom Hall whose challenges I initially railed against but then came to value so much. I think the turning point for me truly came when I told you I feared falling out of love with my subject. You counselled me that I would need to loathe it in order to let go and be done, but that I could look forward to loving it again one day soon. To my firm and fast study-buddy Dr Victoria Silverwood. We met on the criminological outer limits all those years ago and you’ve been a stalwart friend ever since. I’ve enjoyed every moment we’ve shared in both the academic and non-academic spheres, with special mention for our many international conference trips, and so I can only hope there is a way we can continue to mix the two. Thank you for your never ending support (JFDI!); for never leaving me behind; for never making me feel a part timer; and most of all for keeping me sane. I am indebted to the RSPCA for part-funding my studies and particular mention goes to David Bowles and Brian Dalton for supporting my original application. In these latter years my thanks go to my boss Chris Wainwright for tolerating my constant complaining and most of all to my very wise friend Dr Sam Gaines. I would advise anyone contemplating doctoral studies to lean on someone who has walked the path before, so that they might reassure you and calm your mind, just has Sam has done for me on countless occasions. Special mention also goes to those colleagues who gave their insights and time most generously. I am also so very grateful to my team, more than a dozen of you over these years have tolerated my absences, reminded me of the value of this work, and teased me mercilessly on my work/life balance just when I needed it. iv Of course this study would not have been possible without the participants, all of whom were so very supportive from the outset. Your openness and enthusiasm for scrutiny of the policy process was inspiring. Some of you have now moved on to new roles or chapters in life, with one notable exception who passed away far too young. I so wish we had had more time to talk, there was so much more to learn from you. I am profoundly aware that had you lived you would have pursued a PhD. Wherever you are, I hope this thesis does you proud and please forgive every time I have moaned and been ungrateful for this opportunity. Dad, I know my academic pursuits baffle you but nevertheless you have given your unending support for my pursuit of knowledge. We may not talk about the details all that much and yet I’ve always known you are fundamentally very proud of me. When you, Mum and I dreamt of me going to University for my undergraduate studies I never thought I’d be privileged to study for two further degrees. I have also worked hard to make Mum proud, even if she is no longer here to see it. I think that is what she would have wished for, but I know she would tell me to enjoy it too. Above all others I have only made it through to the other side with the support of my wonderful, kind and enduring husband Russ. Whilst my absences may have, at times, given you just the excuse needed to play a computer game or, in more recent years, time to work all hours on your own business (of which I am exceedingly proud by the way), it is your unstinting support and belief in me that has often been the only thing that has carried me through. I’m not known as a quitter but this thesis may well have got the better of me on one or two occasions if it weren’t for you. I can never repay you. Here’s to catching up on all the holidays. One final word to the greatest ball of fluff; my four-legged and doting friend; my office companion, my foot warmer, my portable hoover; my guilt-inducer, my Doozer. A light went out in the world for me when you drew your last breath. For that to happen before I could finish this work and take you on those promised extra walks on the beach and have those struggle-cuddles in front of the fire, will stay with me forever, but then so will the memories of your unconditional love. I adore all dogs but you were not all, you were the dog. For Doozer, and all the lesser dogs. v vi Table of Contents Abstract………….………………………………………………..……………….. iii Acknowledgements……………….……….………….……………..…………..….. iv List of tables and figures…………………………………………………………… x List of Abbreviations……………………………………………………………….. xi Part I - Introduction and theoretical framework Chapter One: Introduction…………………………………………..…………….. 3 1.1 An insider-researcher role……….………….…………………………… 4 1.2 Framing the field……………………………………………….………… 6 Chapter Two: Towards a Criminology of Dog Control…….……………………….. 11 2.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………… 11 2.2 Situating animal abuse within criminology…….………………………….. 11 2.3 Contemplating a culture of control…………….………………………… 19 2.4 Policy theories…………………………………………………………… 26 2.5 Summary……………………….…………………………………..…….. 42 Part II - The policy context Chapter Three: The Policy landscape………….……………………………………. 47 3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………… 47 3.2 Methodological approach…………………..……………………..……… 47 3.3 Legislative and policy landscape………………………………………….. 50 3.4 The Policy community……………………………………………………. 62 3.5 Summary………………………………………………………………… 68 Chapter Four: A history of the present: dog control………………………………. 69 4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………… 69 4.2 Defining ‘status’ and ‘dangerous’ dogs.…….……………………………… 69 4.3 Evidence and prevalence of a ‘problem’………………………………….. 77 4.4 Summary………………………………………………………………… 103 Chapter Five: The politicisation of dog control.……………………………………. 105 5.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………… 105 5.2 A Victorian dog problem……….………………………………………… 105 5.3 The political and social climate…………………………………………… 108 vii 5.4 Exploring the political context of ‘solutions’……………………………… 111 5.5 Dogs as a symbol of a political class war………………………………… 118 5.6 Political concessions and amendments in the aftermath of the DDA……. 121 5.7 The mid-2000s and the emergence of the ‘status dog’ phenomenon……. 126 5.8 Focussing events and further adjustments to the legislative framework….. 131 5.9 Summary………………………………………………………………… 135 Part III - Elite insights into policy formation Chapter Six: Methodology…………………………………………………………. 139 6.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………… 139 6.2 Research aim, objectives and approach……….………………………….. 139 6.3 Research Design…………………………………………………………. 143 6.4 The insider-researcher role………………………………………………. 144 6.5 Research Methods……………………………………………………….