Similar
Stories
Content from our friends over at Grits For Breakfast
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Fort Worth seeks non-punitive alternatives on graffiti
Increasing money for outdoor murals, in particular, should help displace graffiti.
Fort Worth police have been fighting graffiti for years, but despite their best efforts, graff has exploded since 2005, reports the Star-Telegram. The "city cleaned up more graffiti last year than it has in the previous five years." The volume of graff simply outpaces law enforcement's ability to arrest and prosecute, with a 62% increase in graffiti incidents just in city parks, but just a handful of prosecutions:
The Parks Department cleaned up 7,633 sites in fiscal 2009, mostly using money from the city’s sales tax devoted to crime prevention. That’s an increase from 7,586 sites the year before and 4,710 in 2005. It’s historically been difficult to catch and prosecute taggers and graffiti vandals, though. Police reported 59 juvenile cases and 16 adult cases in 2009.
Given how much graffiti occurs and how seldom perpetrators are caught and prosecuted, clearly solutions must come from other quarters besides law enforcement, so I'm glad to see Fort Worth seeking more non-punitive, education-based solutions:
Long term, it’s less expensive to prevent the problem, Assistant Parks Director Melody Mitchell said. The Parks Department and Fort Worth schools are using curriculum developed by the Keep America Beautiful Foundation in after-school programs. Between 2,500 and 3,000 students in grades three to five have gone through the program.
For older students, city officials are developing an educational program for first-time offenders.
The city has also included money for outdoor murals in this year’s public art program, with the belief that young people are less likely to vandalize walls and buildings that already have art on them.
Moncrief and other council members pressed city employees to be more creative. Moncrief suggested working with utility companies to help spot vandalism. Councilman Sal Espino suggested that the educational programs include material about historical buildings.
"I think if the kids learned the history of these buildings, it would go along with what Keep America Beautiful is teaching," he said.
Increasing money for outdoor murals, in particular, should help displace graffiti, as will expanded after-school programming for youth, whether with the Keep America Beautiful curriculum or more traditional activities. IMO the next step should be to create a system to promote invited graff in underutilized public spaces or where property owners don't object. Nothing will "solve" the problem in the near term -- it can only be managed -- but current approaches don't appear to be making a dent, and boosting penalties hasn't helped.
That's why I'm glad to see at least one Texas city looking to solutions beyond arrest and incarceration for this common, non-violent offense. It'll be interesting to watch how well Fort Worth's new programs work compared to other jurisdictions. Enforcement is important, but it's just one leg of the stool. It works best combined with rapid cleanup of uninvited graffiti and the proliferation of acceptable artistic and social outlets for youth.
Pegasus News Content partner - Grits For Breakfast
Faved or commented on by...
Latest Contests
Latest comments...
Concert-goers in Dallas should shut up and listen
I seriously suspect that a great many people out there are so accustomed to chatting in front of the
Concert-goers in Dallas should shut up and listen
I seriously suspect that a great many people out there are so accustomed to chatting in front of the
Pavel Lishin, verified:
Can't wait for the jackass outcry that "we're rewarding the criminals!"
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Travis Bush, verified:
There is also a program in teh works like this for Dallas.
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Graffiti_Task_Force, anonymous:
There is only one solution to the graffiti menace. It is simple, it need not be a burden on the taxpayers, and it is condoned by the U.S. Supreme Court (1970).
What to do? Eliminate the game of Hide-n-Seek. That allows the vandal to be identified in court. If a judge accepts the evidence, accountability for bad behavior follows.
http://graffititaskforce.blogspot.com...
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Pavel Lishin, verified:
Nothing about your comment or that link made any sense. Can you explain?
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Graffiti_Task_Force, anonymous:
The U.S. Constitution protects life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The “liberty” protection means that the government may not incarcerate a citizen without proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed.
The U.S. Supreme Court said that if the government does not threaten incaration, then the burden of proof for a non-criminal (i.e., civil) offense can be lowered. With incarceration forbidden by statute, the penalty can only be a fixed fine, much like a parking ticket.
For a non-criminal offense, the standard of proof remains the same as that needed to prove murder – proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The difference is how the state is allowed to prove its case. If an individual is charged with an offense, as opposed to a crime, the rules of proof may be simplified.
The bill on the link follows the road map crafted by the U.S. Supreme Court – civil proceeding, respect for liberty, high standard of proof, simplified procedure, and due regard for legitimate concerns of the state. It allows a police investigator who is not an eye-witness to present “credible testimony” to identify in an informal hearing who is responsible for the graffiti.
To solve the graffiti problem, the legislature must allow SOME graffiti acts to be treated not as a crime but as an offense. Then, process those acts in an informal hearing. Kids appear in Juvenile Courts with a parent, where records are never public. Adults appear in a civil proceeding, where records are public. Either way, Restorative Justice programs are an option.
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
Graffiti_Task_Force, anonymous:
My apologies for speaking from memory. I revisited Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) to ensure that my facts were correct. They are not.
When confinement is not threatened, the penalty involves only a fine. Nevertheless, the interests at stake are "more substantial than a mere loss of money". It is, therefore, a civil case involving a "quasi-criminal wrongdoing". 441 U.S. 424.
The minimum constitutional standard for quasi-criminal wrongdoing is "clear and convincing" evidence. 441 U.S. 431. How the government meets that standard is a matter for the legislature to decide.
What's important is that the Penal Code ensure "a fair balance between the rights of the individual and the legitimate concerns of the state." 441 U.S. 431. One example would be for the legislature to allow a police investigator who is not an eye-witness to offer credible testimony to identify in an informal hearing who is responsible for the graffiti.
The thrust of my previous post is correct. To solve the graffiti problem, the legislature must allow SOME graffiti acts to be treated not as a crime but as a civil case, much like a parking ticket.
Click http://www.tabcat.com:8888/Texas_graf... for a bill to eradicate graffiti in Texas.
Link to this comment | Suggest removal
What do you think?