print this page

Workshop Presentation
Keep Australia Beautiful Council (NSW)
Graffiti: Off the Wall Seminar
11 June 1997
The Squarehouse, UNSW

Introduction
People have been writing on walls for centuries. In our lifetimes we've seen probably hundreds of pieces of graffiti scattered around Sydney, graffiti that often carried a personal, political or social message. Young lovers have carved their names on trees, and written them on rocks, walls and footpaths. Then there was the man who wrote ‘eternity’ in countless places around the city. In the seventies and eighties there were messages about police verballing, feminist pieces, and claims that certain prisoners had been wrongly convicted. Remember B.U.G.A.U.P.? They wrote (and sometimes still write) on billboards – changing the message conveyed by the advertiser. Some of their members were arrested. Some were convicted. Some had their cases dismissed.

But it is only in the last ten to fifteen years that we have seen some radical changes to the writing on our walls. The practice of ‘tagging’ has begun to dominate the writing on some of Sydney's walls. Amazing murals now adorn other walls that had previously been unsightly and often vandalised. Other walls are constantly and annoyingly being defaced with meaningless scribble. Certainly State Governments, local councils, the police and Keep Australia Beautiful are concerned. And rightly so. We live in a beautiful city/state/country and we should be able to keep it that way.

The Perceived Problem and the Commonly Suggested Solution
Look in almost any recent edition of your local newspaper and you will find a piece on the ‘graffiti’ problem. You will also see some fairly draconian law enforcement solutions suggested. It seems that ‘zero tolerance’ is the contemporary response1. Prosecution for adults and cautions for young people combined with painting over every instance of graffiti and offering a $500-$1000 reward for every piece of information that ultimately leads to a conviction are the standard contemporary responses.

Most ‘concerned citizens’ seem to consider that young people, particularly those aged under 18, are the major perpetrators of graffiti related offences. The available recorded crime statistics do not support this claim2.

Between January and December 1995, police in NSW recorded 71,181 instances of malicious damage to property – that is a rate of 1174.4 per 100,000 population. In the same period in 1996, there were 78,301 incidents (1280.5 per 100,000) recorded by police. The highest rate for both years was recorded in the Inner Sydney area (2432.9 per 100,000 population for 1995; 2543.3 per 100,000 for 1996). The lowest rate was in the Hornsby-Kuringai area (765.1 and 769.9 per 100,000 respectively) (BCSR, 1997: 47). I have no figures that break these statistics down into adult and juvenile apprehensions.

Court statistics are available, however. These tell us how many people faced trial in NSW courts on criminal charges. In 1995, 6321 adults3 faced a total of 6585 charges for property damage in the NSW Local Courts (BCSR, 1996: Table 1.1). The charges included malicious damage to or destruction of property4, wilful damage to Commonwealth property5, and malicious damage of unknown value6.

The NSW Children's Courts dealt with 121 cases of vandalism by girls and 796 cases of vandalism by boys between July 1995 and June 19967. Boys in the Hunter area faced the highest number of charges (142)8. The equivalent figures for 1994/95 were 94 cases by girls and 839 by boys.

Many of the incidents which fall under the headings of damage to property will concern graffiti. Some will not. Even assuming that a reasonable proportion of the offences causing damage to property less than $2001 is graffiti related, these statistics indicate that there are far more adults charged with such offences than there are children and young people. Over 6 times as many adults as children are charged with these categories of offences, yet the impression given by media reports is that the majority of the graffiti on our walls, trains and other surfaces is done by ‘juveniles’. Admittedly, there will be a significant number of incidences in which the police will caution an offender, and perhaps this is more likely where the offender is under 18. Perhaps we are too willing to attribute the writing on the walls to youthful expressions of boredom, rage, or anti-social tendencies.

Other perceptions of the ‘problem’
There are numerous ways to address the ‘graffiti problem’. I've mentioned the ones that seem to be favoured by many – increased intolerance by painting out tags and other graffiti, and swift criminal justice responses. These responses are particularly attractive to politicians and fall into the ‘law ‘n’ order’ approach to crime prevention. This is a particular favourite around election time. It is also a sure way to achieve the criminalisation and alienation of many of our young people.

Rather than achieve these dubious goals, we need to think more creatively about how to decrease the extent of illegal graffiti and increase the inclusion of young people as valued participants in and members of our communities.

Indeed, at this conference and at the conference organised by the State Intelligence Group of the NSW Police Service on 2 May this year a number of speakers have told of creative projects which achieve this aim. I’ll return to some of these examples later in the paper.

Law Enforcement Solutions
Where young people do come into contact with the legal system because of graffiti related charges, they should be treated fairly. When a graffiti related offence comes to the notice of police and an alleged young offender is apprehended, it is essential that police consider whether the offence is serious enough to warrant a criminal justice response which goes beyond the giving of an informal caution. If a significant amount of harm has been caused to property by the graffiti, then the most appropriate action may be for the investigating officer to give the young offender a caution and require that an apology is given to the householder or business person to whose property the graffiti has caused damage. When the proposed Young Offenders Bill passes through Parliament, there may be some offences that should be referred for Conferencing. However, other, more creative strategies should be considered which fall outside direct criminal justice processing and may ultimately prove more effective in providing a sustained decrease in the levels of vandalism, including graffiti, which are being experienced in local communities.

Graffiti as a symptom of broader problems
It is useful at this point to canvas the problems facing many young people in Australia today. These include increasing levels of unemployment. A significant number of young people are alienated from traditional education and have few prospects of finding meaningful work in the future because of this (Crooks, Webb, Forster and Williamson, 1997). Levels of youth homelessness are high and, by all accounts, increasing. The politics of ‘law and order’ have no solution to these problems faced by young people other than to paint young people as the problem and respond through measures which effectively increase alienation, and correlated boredom and so-called ‘anti-social’ behaviour.

One example of such a response is the continued operation and proposed extension of the Children (Parental Responsibility) Act 1994 (see Polk, 1997; White, 1997). It is useful to note that the original version of this Act and an amendment to the Summary Offences Act that created two new graffiti related offences where introduced into Parliament at the same time. These Bills were part of a ‘get tough law and order strategy’ introduced by Premier Fahey immediately prior to the 1995 State elections. The ‘new’ offences (that were already in the Crimes Act but had heavier penalties under the latter Act) were ‘damaging and defacing property by means of spray paint’ and ‘possession of spray paint with the intention to damage property’. These ‘new’ offences carry maximum penalties of 12 month and six-month gaol terms respectively. The community response was swift and highly critical. One example of the response is that of the NSW Federation of Parents and Teachers Association, who characterised the proposals as ‘ham fisted, hysterical and counterproductive’ (Totaro and Coulton, 1994: 3).

Instead of looking for and introducing ‘get tough’ strategies, which are often counterproductive and invariably draw much justifiable criticism from those who work most closely with children and young people, we should support the development of appropriate crime prevention measures which respect the human rights of young people and incorporate their views, needs and ideas in devising solutions to the problems caused, in this instance, by graffiti. A sensible approach to youth crime prevention will address both the motivations of young people to engage in graffiti and the opportunities available to do so (see Polk, 1997: 189). Rather than process all young graffiti ‘artists’ through the criminal justice system, police should work with community members who are affected by graffiti and with young people who engage in graffiti related activities. Young people then become part of the solution, rather than being seen as the problem. Police can play an active role in bringing both groups together to discuss the best ways of addressing graffiti and, in the process, may begin to address the issues of alienation, boredom and hopelessness which often are expressed through the defacing of walls and other available surfaces.

There are a number of good contemporary examples of police working successfully with local communities to address graffiti. Some examples are the Contemporary Urban Art Project described by Carol Strong at the State Intelligence Group forum, Andrew Collins’ Hip Hop Graffiti project in the Newcastle area and the work of the Waverley Action for Youth Services and the Newtown PCYC, all of which provide a youth and community focussed response. These are examples of good practices which could and should be adopted with appropriate adaptations in other areas. These approaches to graffiti prevention are ‘directed, at least in part, towards an expansion of opportunities for direct participation by marginalised young people in neighbourhood and community activities’ (Polk, 1997: 193). These approaches suggest that the development of crime prevention strategies which enhance the potential for young peoples’ development to full, voluntary and enthusiastic participation in the life of their community is possible, and inherently more desirable, than reliance upon coercive measures alone.

Notes:

1. See, for example, Wentworth Courier, 23 April 1997, p. 5; 21 May 1997, p. 13; The Sun-Herald, 18 May 1997, p.28
2. Although care should be taken in interpreting recorded crime statistics as an accurate indicator of the actual extent of any category of offending. See, for example the discussion of this issue in Brown et al, 1990:158-168
3. People over 18 years of age
4. The seriousness of these charges is related to the value of the property destroyed. The majority of charges under this heading concerned property valued at less than $2001. Of the 4737 charges which fell into this category, 94 were convicted ex parte (that is, the accused did not appear in court) and the offence was proven in 3937 cases. 706 charges were dismissed. 529 charges were related to property valued between $2000 and $5001 (453 proven cases), and 42 related to property valued between $5000 and $15001 (38 proven cases) (Source: unpublished statistics, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 1997).
5. 18 of the 31 charges in this category were proven (ibid)
6. 935 of 1200 charges proven (ibid)
7. The Children’s Courts hear charges against people who were under 18 at the time the alleged offence occurred.
8. Ibid, page 72