Comments on: Two Years Probation, 200 Hours Community Service

By: Gideon Kramer

Gideon Kramer — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 23:11:30 +0000

The sentence for the tagger busted by SFPD in DP makes total sense. The idea behind “meaningful sentencing” is not to “ruin someone’s life” (they don’t need the state to do that; they’re doing it to themselves) is to send a strong message that destroying someone else’s property is WRONG. Some may consider graffiti on private or public property “gorgeous artwork”, but it is nothing but vandalism. If you want to create artwork find the appropriate venue, and don’t deface other’s property. Period. Those who feel they have the “right” to “express themselves” at other’s expense have a very skewed sense of their “rights” in a civil society. With rights and freedom comes responsibility, something that is entirely lost on graffiti vandals (I use that term advisedly rather than “graffiti artist” despite the fact that some vandals actually do have artistic talent–but talent that is very badly misapplied. And please don’t tell us that these folks are poor, disadvantaged kids from the ghetto or barrio–the average tagger is white, middle-class and mid-twenties. No, tagging is all about “taking space”, gaining notoriety among your peers, and saying “screw you” to the “establishment”, whatever that is. And the other famous excuse that “corporations have their big billboards, we have our spray cans and markers”, is a total cop-out. To those who feel they have a right to deface private and public property like the clubhouse/bathrooms in DP, I would ask: Do you feel I have a right to key YOUR car because I think it’s cool making those destructive, ah but expressive, scratches on your vehicle, or urinate on your front door because I feel like it, or a myriad other acts of irresponsibility just because I “feel like it?” Meaningful sentencing for graffiti vandalism is designed to give taggers pause to consider these questions. And consider too, if you think the sentence is too severe or utterly unwarranted: for every arrest actually made, a tagger will typically have done thousands of tags without getting busted, so getting busted is a very very rare occurrence. I have absolutely no sympathy for these loose cannons.

By: SFDoggy

SFDoggy — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 05:39:09 +0000

The probation totally makes sense. This is a wake up call to the dude that he needs to learn how to live in a civilized society. Hopefully, he will be deterred from destroying more property.

By: mattymatt

mattymatt — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:11:50 +0000

That is pretty strict — jail time for two little offenses? That sounds to me like something that should be rethought; although my knowledge/experience with crime and punishment is absolutely zero.

For now, though, if the guy doesn’t want to go to jail, the solution seems simple enough: don’t commit any crimes. At least for a little while.

By: zinzin

zinzin — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:06:56 +0000

thanks jb. i’m no softy, but i think that even the remote possibility of jail time for this kind of (annoying, childish, costly, destructive) shit is totally fucked up.

potential to ruin a life…i’ve seen it happen (3 strikes for dimebags) and it ain’t pretty, or appropriate.

that said, i think extended and diligent com serv is awesome, and i think garnishment of wages, public postings (like they used to do for solicitation in oakland), etc would be super.

By: jimbeam

jimbeam — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:55:31 +0000

It would be possible that the offender could serve time in a county jail for a second misdemeanor depending on the severity of the misdemeanor, the judge and the quality of the defendant’s attorney. They could also get a second slap on the wrist with stricter probation, a larger fine and more community service. But yeah, there would definitely be a chance that he/she could serve time in county for another misdemeanor.

By: zinzin

zinzin — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 16:02:26 +0000

@jimbeam – is it true that, when on probation for a misd, you go to jail for a second?

if that’s true, i agree that portion of the sentence seems severe. the kid’s a punk, but he doesn’t deserve real jail time for this + a dimebag or something.

seems like an example is being made. given “some” people’s dislike of tags, i guess it was just a matter of time.

his community service will likely (hopefully) involve wearing an orange vest and pushing a broom up mission street with the rest of the misd / d&d / solicitation crowd.

By: jimbeam

jimbeam — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:45:13 +0000

The community service makes sense, the 2 years probation does not. Do we really want to put people in jail for two minor acts of vandalism, or an act of vandalism and another minor infraction? Seems like just what we need in CA- more people with the chance to end up in our over crowded prisons.

By: Drew

Drew — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:48:14 +0000

Not the maximum punishment, but 200 hours of graffiti abatement seems like a rare case of justice served.

By: born and raised

born and raised — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:01:10 +0000

I think his community service should be paying for the paint and doing the work to paint over the graffiti at Dolores park for a year.

By: aidan

aidan — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:59:26 +0000

this is so awesome. i wonder what the restitution and court fees came out to. at least a thousand for sure.

By: mattymatt

mattymatt — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 19:35:12 +0000

I wonder what the community service will be.

By: conor

conor — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 18:23:47 +0000

this is so absurd.

By: fsharp

fsharp — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:59:33 +0000

So sad. That was such beautiful and inspiring graffiti art there on that bathroom.