According to Expresso, the amount of grafitti on trains is a huge problem. It has gotten to the point that the authorities cannot keep up and passengers no longer can see the outside:
Some look at grafitti with mild eyes. It is also called street art. In a few places, such as abandoned buildings that may be true. But not when it destroys property - public or private. Then it is pure vandalism. Most of grafitti is just simple tagging. Some even paint inside buildings, inside trains and sometimes dangerously overwrite traffic signs. Often painting is not sufficient and windows and metal are permanently damaged by scratching.
One cannot but wonder why the authorities do not do take more action. I once saw a couple of youths vandalizing a bus stop. Nearby a lady reported it to a policeman. He was not interested. I doubt it is because of the not so low number of police in this country.
New York used to be one of the cities in the US with most crime. Currently, it is the one with the lowest rate of crime when considering the largest cities.
New York authorities claim it is because of the "broken windows theory" and the subsequent measures taken:
It sounds like common sense to me. Though of course most sociologists point to other socioeconomic (left wing?) parameters as the cause of he lower crime rate.
But prevention is nearly always cheaper than treatment. If you take into account the social and economic costs - it then becomes a no-brainer.
May I suggest that every grafitti painter caught is given a fine commensurate with the cost of cleaning? In case of them being minors - let their parents pay. On top of that put them to clean up while they serve time.
Some look at grafitti with mild eyes. It is also called street art. In a few places, such as abandoned buildings that may be true. But not when it destroys property - public or private. Then it is pure vandalism. Most of grafitti is just simple tagging. Some even paint inside buildings, inside trains and sometimes dangerously overwrite traffic signs. Often painting is not sufficient and windows and metal are permanently damaged by scratching.
One cannot but wonder why the authorities do not do take more action. I once saw a couple of youths vandalizing a bus stop. Nearby a lady reported it to a policeman. He was not interested. I doubt it is because of the not so low number of police in this country.
New York used to be one of the cities in the US with most crime. Currently, it is the one with the lowest rate of crime when considering the largest cities.
New York authorities claim it is because of the "broken windows theory" and the subsequent measures taken:
Consider a building with a few broken windows. If the windows are not repaired, the tendency is for vandals to break a few more windows. Eventually, they may even break into the building, and if it's unoccupied, perhaps become squatters or light fires inside. Or consider a sidewalk. Some litter accumulates. Soon, more litter accumulates. Eventually, people even start leaving bags of trash from take-out restaurants there or breaking into cars.What the police in New York was told to do, was to spend more energy on petty crime, such as vandalism (including grafitti) and littering. Thus anti-social behavior would be stopped early and fewer youths would enter a career of heavy crime.
It sounds like common sense to me. Though of course most sociologists point to other socioeconomic (left wing?) parameters as the cause of he lower crime rate.
But prevention is nearly always cheaper than treatment. If you take into account the social and economic costs - it then becomes a no-brainer.
May I suggest that every grafitti painter caught is given a fine commensurate with the cost of cleaning? In case of them being minors - let their parents pay. On top of that put them to clean up while they serve time.
