How are you supposed to help people that want to spray their ‘art’ on other peoples property? People that want to vandalize other peoples property? Give them free paint?
Yes, some people use spraypaint to make stunning, socially relevant art. Banksy is, in some sense, a graffiti artist.
But most graffiti has nothing to do with Banksy-esque social commentary. In fact, much of it is simply gang signs labeling areas of turf control. The people writing these gang sign messages are absolutely not interested in having a specific, authorized place in which to exhibit their street artwork.
It's some seriously privileged classist stuff to make the claims that you're making
It's "subjective" whether or not gang tags constitute art, rather than a danger to the community?!?
Huh?!
It's crazy how some people think painted symbols present a danger to humans somehow
I'm trying not to be offensive or personal here, but I'm stunned at this take that refuses to acknowledge how dangerous and harmful street gangs are to communities. If you've ever had to live in a neighborhood with them, like I have, then I doubt this would be as much of an issue for you?
We aren't talking about that sort of painted symbol, though. I'm totally mystified as to why you refuse to acknowledge the nature of gang tags. They aren't art, and aren't intended to be art. Instead, they're enciphered threats to other criminals in the area, warning them to stay out. They don't and aren't intended to outlast the people who painted them.
And most importantly, they represent real danger to the entire community. Turf wars, mistaken identity shootings, as well as gang activities like narcotics, sex trafficking, and robbery/burglary are all to be expected in areas where gangs openly declare ownership of turf with tags.
Also stating again: intent does not matter
Because in some rail yard somewhere lurks some really decked out train cars, you want to prevent a neighborhood plagued with gang violence from protecting their community?
If you really want to stop gang violence, people in poverty need opportunity and investment. Preventing gang members from painting things does nothing to solve the problem of violence, that's an absurd conclusion.
The theory you are presenting, of monocausal criminality due to economic conditions, has been analyzed thoroughly and rejected decisively by the field of criminology for decades, now. It's easy to see why: we can compare impoverished groups both nationally and globally and discover that there is simply no causal, consistent relationship between poverty and violent criminality.
To be sure, economics can play a role and become a factor in motivating criminal behavior, but violent criminality is ultimately a choice that people make, not a direct consequence of poverty. Indeed, many groups suffering tremendous poverty exhibit very low rates of violent crime, and likewise, Suge Knight exists.
Another perspective is that people do what they can afford to, murals can be an inexpensive way to brighten an otherwise bleak area.
Also your comment makes it sound like literally all people are just vandals who do graffiti. That's a disgusting view of humans that lacks perspective and nuance.
> Critics, such as Robert J. Sampson and Stephen Raudenbush of Harvard University, see the application of the broken windows theory in policing as a war against the poor, as opposed to a war against more serious crimes.
>It was popularized in the 1990s by New York City police commissioner William Bratton and mayor Rudy Giuliani, whose policing policies were influenced by the theory.
Example of the absurdity of implementation:
>Throughout the late 1990s, NYPD shut down many of the city's acclaimed night spots for illegal dancing.
Tons of criticisms, not to mention it was partially popularized by an incredibly flawed study by the infamous Zimbardo
>However, other studies do not find a cause and effect relationship between the adoption of such policies and decreases in crime.[6][25] The decrease may have been part of a broader trend across the United States. The rates of most crimes, including all categories of violent crime, made consecutive declines from their peak in 1990, under Giuliani's predecessor, David Dinkins. Other cities also experienced less crime, even though they had different police policies
>Baltimore criminologist Ralph B. Taylor argues in his book that fixing windows is only a partial and short-term solution. His data supports a materialist view: changes in levels of physical decay, superficial social disorder, and racial composition do not lead to higher crime, but economic decline does. He contends that the example shows that real, long-term reductions in crime require that urban politicians, businesses, and community leaders work together to improve the economic fortunes of residents in high-crime areas.[42]
>According to a study by Robert J. Sampson and Stephen Raudenbush, the premise on which the theory operates, that social disorder and crime are connected as part of a causal chain, is faulty. They argue that a third factor, collective efficacy, "defined as cohesion among residents combined with shared expectations for the social control of public space," is the actual cause of varying crime rates that are observed in an altered neighborhood environment. They also argue that the relationship between public disorder and crime rate is weak.[44]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory
There are so many issues it's difficult to fit everything in one comment. Did you read the wikipedia article?