Crime prevention series

Introduction

Published in:
Preventing graffiti and vandalism
Susan Geason and Paul Wilson
Canberra : Australian Institute of Criminology, 1990
ISBN 0 642 14936 4 ; ISSN 1031-5330
(Crime prevention series) ; pp. 1-3

Not all graffiti are written by alienated teenagers, and not all vandalism constitutes wilful damage. Graffiti and vandalism are complex, multi-faceted problems requiring a range of responses for their solution.

If beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder, nowhere is this more evident than in the response to graffiti. To many train travellers they are ugly, anti-social daubs, while for their practitioners they represent an expression of individuality in an impersonal world.

Some artists, sociologists and writers even regard graffiti as a sophisticated art form, calling it 'spray can art'. As one 'writer' commented, graffiti has been with us since our early ancestors painted on cave walls.

And not all graffiti are motivated by a simple desire for self advertisement, a demand for attention; some are an advertisement for a cause - a propaganda tool. Many anti-smokers, critics of the consumer society - and even judges - are supportive of the efforts of BUGA UP (Billboard-Utilising Graffitists Against Unhealthy Promotions) in defacing billboard advertising for what they consider to be harmful products.

Graffiti can also be more attractive than what it allegedly defaces. Most of us have had a laugh out of graffiti at some point, and many dreary hoardings have been enlivened by illegal murals.

Neither is all vandalism anti-social in nature. A great deal - estimates run as high as three-quarters - is opportunistic in character; that is, it results from poor design which cannot handle the demands of wear and tear placed on it; it is caused by people adapting their environment to make it work better; or it can simply be caused by kids being kids. With opportunistic vandalism, the offender might have had no intention of causing damage, but the result is viewed by others as vandalism.

Examples of opportunistic vandalism are damage to flimsy doors without door stops in heavily used entrances, short cuts across lawns, holes in fences to create short cuts, damage to the backs of park benches caused by people straddling them, doors broken open by curious children, and bikes leaned against shop windows because there is nowhere else to put them. In most of these cases, the problem could have been obviated by better design and planning.

One solution to opportunistic damage is to reduce opportunities for graffitists and vandals to offend, that is, taking a situational approach. This involves changing the environment in which the offender operates, rather than trying to change the offender's character or motivation.

The situational approach is based on rational choice theory, that is, it assumes that offenders freely and actively choose to commit crimes; that the decision to commit the crime is made in response to the immediate circumstances and the immediate situation in which an offence is contemplated; and the motivation to offend is not constant or beyond control. In other words, it is dependent on a calculation of costs and rewards rather than being the result of inheriting or acquiring a disposition to offend (Bennet 1986).

In practical terms this means that, instead of concentrating exclusively on dealing with the factors in a criminal's background or environment which might be causing him or her to commit a crime - e.g. poverty, poor education, inadequate socialisation - we design measures directly related to preventing criminal acts (Jeffery 1971).

The attraction of the situational crime prevention approach is that it can work in the short term while researchers and policy makers work on other longer-term solutions to the problem of crime. Situational crime prevention is explained in greater detail in Crime Prevention: theory and practice (Geason & Wilson 1988).

Examples of opportunity reduction are: using materials that are resistant to scratching and marking; improved lighting and better design to remove vandals' cover; security patrols; restrictions on the sale of spray paints; community, and even electronic, surveillance.

According to the statistics we have quoted, only a quarter of vandalism is premeditated. Examples of premeditated vandalism include malicious damage of trains, soccer hooliganism and damage caused by street gangs. This type of vandalism is more complex than opportunistic vandalism and requires more sophisticated, longer-term solutions. Consequently, we have not restricted our study to situational crime prevention strategies, but have investigated social programs aimed at alleviating some of the boredom and alienation which lead young people to destroy or decorate their environment.

These longer-term solutions include diverting potential offenders through programs of activities which keep them occupied and raise their self-esteem; community and school educational and consciousness-raising programs to promote a sense of responsibility for, and ownership of, community resources and facilities; and even providing legal outlets for graffitists to practice their art.

Finally, we do not regard the eradication of graffiti and vandalism as a realistic goal; vandalism, like graffiti, has a long history. Rather we aim to lessen the problem - and as a result lower the fear of crime among the general community - through a mix of situational strategy and long-term prevention programs.

In this volume on preventing vandalism and graffiti, we will look at criminological theories on vandalism, as well as describing planning, management, architectural and design strategies for minimising vandalism and graffiti on public transport and in public places, in and around public telephones, in schools, and in public housing.