Download - Graffiti; The Art Crime.pdf

7/22/2019 Graffiti; The Art Crime.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/graffiti-the-art-crimepdf 1/16

Graffiti: The Art CrimeAnalysis and Solutions Using Community Policing Strategies

Andrew E. Braley

December 10, 2012



Table of Contents

Cover Page................................................................................................................1

Table of Contents.....................................................................................................2

Introduction..............................................................................................................3

Pictures of graffiti............................................................................................3

Location....................................................................................................................4

Overview with map.........................................................................................4

Primary location with map..............................................................................5

Law Enforcement Response....................................................................................6

Ordinances and statutes...................................................................................6 Directed patrol.................................................................................................7

Cleanup.....................................................................................................................7

Solutions...................................................................................................................8

Solutions in other places.................................................................................8

Recommended solutions.................................................................................9

Potential locations for graffiti wall................................................................10

Community and Law Enforcement Efforts.........................................................13

Follow-up................................................................................................................14

Conclusion..............................................................................................................15

Sources....................................................................................................................16



Introduction

Graffiti has been around since the ancient times, making appearances in almost every city

throughout the globe since then. Graffiti can be from, or used by, gangs, political or social

activists, artists, juvenile mischief, advertisements, in memoriam, or simply just to vandalize.

Recently, there has been an increase of graffiti in Bangor, Maine. Fortunately, Bangor Police

Department reports that there are no gangs in the area, but that the main problem is juvenile

mischief. Bangor has several markings that are found copied throughout the city, such as the

“Play” tag or the circular flower-like tag. There is also graffiti that is not replicated, such as the

anti-Semitic tags marked on the Beth Abraham Synagogue in September.

“Play” on the underside of a bridge “Play” on the side of a building

Circle flower tag on electrical box “Love=All=Now” on basement door of a business



The area that has been targeted the most for graffiti is located in the downtown district,

and some of the surrounding areas of Bangor. This area is a key target for graffiti tags due to the

accessibility of locations, and the amount of unwatched wall space behind businesses. Although

other graffiti does take place throughout the city, the focus of this project is on the downtown

district. The Bangor Police Department is located within this triangle of the downtown district,

and does provide a walking beat for officers during the late spring through fall.

Primary concentration of graffiti tags in Bangor, Maine



Law Enforcement Response

It is extremely hard for law enforcement officers to catch vandals because they (most

often) have to be caught red-handed. To prosecute the offenders, officers may use a city

ordinance or a state statute. The Bangor city ordinance (with Sections B and C removed for lack

of applicability), followed by the penalties for committing the violation:

§ 215-4. Defacement of public or private property.

[Amended 5-8-1986 by Ord. No. 86-208] Except where permission shall have first been

obtained from the owner or any lawful occupant of any property within the City of Bangor, no

person shall:

A. Buildings and structures. Willfully mark, deface, disfigure, injure, tamper with or displace or

remove any public or private building or structure located on such property, including but notlimited to public utility improvements, signs, monuments, tables, benches, fountains and fences.

§ 215-12. Violations and penalties.

[Added 8-11-1986 by Ord. No. 86-312; amended 4-8-1996 by Ord. No. 96-160 Editor's Note:

Amended at time of adoption of Code (see Ch. 1 , General Provisions, Art. I). ] Except as

otherwise provided, any person adjudged to have violated any provision this chapter shall be

punished by a fine not exceeding $1,000 for each offense.

The officer may choose to use a state statute to charge the offender, with which may

include jail time alongside a fine. The articles are as follows:

§507. Desecration and defacement

1. A person is guilty of desecration and defacement if he intentionally desecrates any public

monument or structure, any place of worship or burial, or any private structure not owned by

him. [ 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW) .]

2. As used in this section, "desecrate" means marring, defacing, damaging or otherwise

physically mistreating, in a way that will outrage the sensibilities of an ordinary person likely to

observe or discover the actions. [ 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW) .]

3. Desecration is a Class D crime. [ 1983, c. 710, (AMD) .]

§806. Criminal mischief

1. A person is guilty of criminal mischief if that person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly:

A. Damages or destroys the property of another, having no reasonable grounds to believe that the

person has a right to do so; damages or destroys property to enable any person to collect

insurance proceeds for the loss caused; or tampers with the property of another, having no

http://www.ecode360.com/6888376#6888376





reasonable grounds to believe that the person has the right to do so, and thereby impairs the use

of that property; [1991, c. 824, Pt. D, §3 (RPR).]

2. Criminal mischief is a Class D crime.

Bangor Police Department has been working on a directed patrol for the downtown

district area in response to the increase in number of graffiti tags. This patrol is exclusively

designed to catch offenders in the act of defacement. This patrol is oriented around the

downtown area, and consists of driving and on-foot patrol with several officers monitoring high

target areas. Behind businesses and under bridges are the most common spots, but the patrol also

watches for train-car vandalism, and talking with business owners about graffiti in the area.

Cleanup

The Department of Public Works is responsible for the removal and cleanup of graffiti

found in the city. Approximately $15,000 is spent each year in the removal of graffiti and the

replacement of tagged signs.

During this past summer Councilor Charles Longo noticed a large increase of graffiti in

the downtown area of Bangor. During the next few months, Mr. Longo worked to get the issue

on the agenda for the council meeting. The idea was to generate a cleanup of the graffiti through

the city, and work with law enforcement to resolve the problem. When the topic was brought to

the Bangor Police Department, the directed patrol was put in place to help combat these crimes

(See Law Enforcement Response for the directed patrol description). Also in response to the

councilor’s concerns was a cleanup crew to take down and remove graffiti from locations around

the city. This crew consisted of law enforcement officers, Department of Public Works members,

volunteers, business owners, and offenders who had been found guilty of defacement.



Solutions

Solutions breaks down into 3 parts. First, a look at solutions implemented in other areas

of Maine, and the United States. This analysis shows the efforts put forth by the cities to curb

the graffiti problems, and the effectiveness of said solutions. The second part is my

recommended solutions for the graffiti problem in Bangor.

In Portland, Maine there is a wall on the Eastern Promenade Trail (Alongside the East

End Wastewater Treatment Facility) that is a legal spot for artists and taggers alike to paint what

they would like. The idea was to support and encourage art within the city, while remaining

within the law. By giving an area to paint where people cannot get in trouble reduces the chances

of offenders going elsewhere to paint (where they might be apprehended).

In 2011, Portland Police responded to approximately 862 calls for vandalism. In 2012,

the Portland Police responded to only 530 vandalism calls. Portland Police Department has a

graffiti program, but not a directed patrol such as Bangor Police Department does. Although

there is no evidence of a direct correlation, the graffiti wall may have helped reduce the

vandalism rate within the city. Also, the creation of a graffiti outreach program with the

community can drastically increase the chance of reporting vandalism and catching more

criminals in the act.

The city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania has an Anti-Graffiti Network which is comprised

of city officials and agencies, community volunteers, and business members. This network

provides free graffiti removal services to the city, and also sets up Mural Arts Programs for areas

in the city that would like a place to legally paint.



The Anti-Graffiti Network has cleaned approximately 124,000 properties and fixtures in

2012. The Mural Arts Program is the largest art program in the United States, and also is a

proponent of the restorative justice model. The Mural Arts Project, which serves around 200

juveniles per year and 300 adult offenders, allows offenders to help clean up the community,

learn new skills. The effects of this program have drastically reduced the number of illegal

graffiti throughout the city, while providing an opportunity for youth and adult offenders to

express their art in public.

The first solution to the graffiti problem in Bangor is the same as Councilor Longo, and

other cities as well; Build, or find, a wall where the public could paint freely. This solution

involves almost no law enforcement, but the police department must be notified which areas

within the city are deemed legal to paint on. However, there are some other items that need

addressing with this solution. The area should be accessible and open for all ages to attend.

Young kids may wish to paint and have their ideas be expressed so the town my see them. By

offering an open, safe, and unique environment, kids get the benefits of having the freedom of

expression and art while staying in bounds with the law. The area should have a sign that states

certain rules such as “No profanity, no vulgar words, and no nudity.” Again, this opens the area

up to all ages, and generates a better image of the city. Lastly, there should be several trashcans

in close proximity to the wall, some of which are designated for paint cans only. This can help

the city recycle the waste, and help keep the area clean and friendly. There can also be walls

made in some public parks which allow graffiti as well. These walls can be short and wide, and

made of relatively cheap material (i.e. concrete), and would offer a cheap way to “distract”

criminals from painting on other property, to where they may paint and not get in trouble.



Three potential ideas for legal graffiti areas include, but are not limited to, the following:

1) An old car dealership located in the triangle of Main Street, Summer Street, and Cedar Street.

2) Large brick wall located on the South wall of the Charles Inn



3) Large brick wall located in near Merchants Plaza, diagonal from Pickering Square

The second approach to the graffiti problem is to use the restorative justice model for

offenders, especially juveniles. I suggest developing a program with the superintendent of the

Bangor area schools, local artists, law enforcement, and offenders called “ART; Artists

Reforming Tags”. This program would entail offenders aiding local artists with after school art

programs. With law enforcement oversight for the offenders, and schools willing to participate,

this program could have huge potential benefits. The offender is able to give service back to the

community instead of punishment, the artists are able to showcase their talents and pieces to

others, and the youth are growing because of a dynamic after school program.

The third tactic to combating graffiti is partially in place already. The directed patrol

method is essential in fighting vandalism in a city. Bangor Police should delegate two or three

officers (or however many deemed necessary) to handle vandalism, defacement, and graffiti

calls. These officers primary duties would be to patrol, investigate, file, and work on



aforementioned crimes. These officers would be the liaison from business owners to the police

department. This small task force would be able to set up patrol duties around high target areas to

watch for offenders during the day and night. This force could also lead workshops for law

enforcement and the public on “Art crimes” (see Community and Law Enforcement Efforts

for more detail on these workshops). Lastly, this task force would be able to catalog any graffiti

markings, and note any reoccurring tags to monitor possible gang, or serial, tagging activity.

The last recommendation is to use anti-graffiti paint coatings through the city. The

Department of Public Works would lead this project with minimal, if any, law enforcement

involvement. These coatings are designed so that paint does not bond with the coating on said

object. By using this coating on statues, memorials, benches, mail boxes, street signs, and other

city property small enough to be covered, it may save the city money in the long term from

replacing or repairing objects.



Community and Law Enforcement Efforts

As mentioned above, the graffiti task force could hold workshops for the public, and

mainly business owners, to attend that pertain to graffiti within the community. These workshops

could include lessons on what qualifies as vandalism or graffiti (i.e. writing, painting,

scratching). Preventative measures such as fencing around your home or business, installing

lighting, installing cameras outback of buildings. How to document and report graffiti if you see

it. These workshops would be free, and possibly held once or twice a year.

Business owners and city officials should be willing to offer wall space, or building a

place, to paint which would help deter people from painting in non-designated spots. If a

business owner or city officials choose not to allow for wall space, law enforcement should still

work with them to promote quick and accurate reporting. This can help officers catch, and stop,

the offenders and in turn reduce the graffiti around the city. Business owners should also be

asked to contribute to the cleanup efforts (e.g. selling paint at a reduced price, or renting

equipment at a discounted rate) which could help keep city expenses down.

A graffiti cleanup crew may also want to be established in the Department of Pubic

Works that has a list of local volunteers and citizens who would be willing to help clean graffiti.

Working with groups such as the Boy Scouts of America could greatly increase the cleanup crew

size, and the amount of work being done through the city during the year. Again, with law

enforcement oversight, offenders may be asked to participate in these crews in place of a fine or

potential jail time.



Follow up

Following up with a project such as this is essential to making it work. Not only

reviewing what has been done, but also maintaining, or shifting, goals as time progresses. These

are just some examples of follow up items, and the time which they should happen.

6 Months: Police department should have, or has planned, a graffiti task force. Business owners

should have implemented preventative measures, or are taking preventative steps, to

combat graffiti. ART program should be being tested or used in area schools. Areas of the

city should be looked at and evaluated for potential legal painting areas. Objects that can

use the anti-graffiti coating are being coated and set.

1 Year: Police Department should have fully implemented graffiti task force. Host graffiti

workshop for new business members and citizens of the city. ART program should have

continued use in area schools. Compare crime statistics, and if needed, rework directed

patrol. Putting in place and promoting legal painting areas in the city.

3 Years: Compare crime statistics and evaluate the need for graffiti task force. Continue to host

graffiti workshops for business owners and public. ART program should be evaluated and

reviewed. Maintenance of legal painting areas, and consideration for more based on city

council and city popular vote.



Conclusion

Combatting graffiti takes time, effort, and a willingness from both the community and the

police department. There must be several solutions used to achieve the result of less graffiti and

reducing recidivism with offenders. Offenders should be offered the chance to serve their

community rather than face direct punishment which will generate a better community in the

long run. Also, with the police department working closely with the public and community

members, it will create a positive image of the city, and promote trust of law enforcement

everywhere. If implemented, pass the idea on to other cities that may be having trouble with

graffiti so that they may see and use other ideas in their projects.



Works Cited

1. "Anti-graffiti Coating." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Apr. 2012. Web.

08 Dec. 2012.

2. "Anti-Graffiti Network." PHILA.GOV . City of Philadelphia, n.d. Web. 08 Dec.2012.

3. "The Anti-Graffiti Project." National Council to Prevent Delinquency. N.p.,

2011. Web. 20 Nov. 2012.

4. "Bangor Maine." Map. Google Maps. N.p., n.d. Web.

5. Eastern Promenade Master Plan. Rep. Portland: n.p., 2004. Web. <http://

www.ci.portland.me.us/planning/epmp.pdf >.

6. Graffiti and Potential Graffiti Wall, Bangor, Maine. Personal photograph by

author. 2012.

7. Longo, Charles. "2012 Graffiti Project." Telephone interview. 4 Dec. 2012.

8 .Maine. City of Bangor. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Part II Section 215. City of Bangor Code.

Ecode360. Web. <http://www.ecode360.com/BA1684>.

9. McAmbley, Jason. "Combatting Graffiti." Personal interview. 18 Oct. 2012.

10. Neff, Andrew. "Graffiti at Two Bangor Synagogues Called ‘hate Crime’." Bangor Daily News. Bangor Daily News, 22 Sept. 2012. Web. 8 Dec. 2012.

11. Peak, Kenneth J., and Ronald W. Glensor. Community Policing and Problem

Solving: Strategies and Practices. Boston: Pearson, 2012. Print.

12. "Portland Police Department Crime Data." Map Nimbus. N.p., 20 Nov. 2012.

Web. 08 Dec. 2012.

13. Maine. Maine Legislature. Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Maine Revised

Statutes. N.p.: n.p., n.d. Print. 17-A.

http://www.ecode360.com/BA1684

http://www.ci.portland.me.us/planning/epmp.pdf






