Graffiti: taking a closer look.

Not long ago, the word graffiti conjured images of innocent messages, such as "Tom loves Jane," or "Class of '73." Such simple and innocuous scribblings, although occasionally still seen, have become essentially messages of the past. Most of the graffiti that mars contemporary American landscape - both urban and rural - contain messages of hatred, racism, and gang warfare.

Public attitudes toward graffiti tend to fluctuate between indifference and intolerance. On a national level, the criminal justice system has yet to adopt a uniform response to graffiti and the individuals who create this so-called street art. While some jurisdictions combat the problem aggressively, others do very little or nothing at all to punish offenders or to deter the spread of graffiti.

To a large degree, society's inability to decide on a focused response to graffiti stems from the nature of the offense. It could be argued that graffiti falls into the grey area between crime and public nuisance.

If graffiti is considered in a vacuum, such an argument could appear to have some credence. However, it is unrealistic, and ultimately foolhardy, to view such a public offense in a vacuum. There is a growing consensus in communities around the country that the problem of graffiti, if left unaddressed, creates an environment where other more serious crimes flourish and can quickly degrade once low-crime areas.

At a time when law enforcement agencies nationwide are adopting more community-based policing philosophies, administrators are exploring ways to address the basic factors that lead to crime and neighborhood decline. The time has come to take a closer look at graffiti.

WALL WRITING

Graffiti is a general term for wall writing, perhaps humankind's earliest art form. The crude wall writings of prehistoric times and the highly stylized street art of today's inner-city youths share one common feature: Each stems from a basic human need to communicate with others.(1)

For youths who may not be able to express themselves through other media, such as prose or music, graffiti represents an easily accessible and effective way to communicate with a large audience. Anyone can obtain a can of spray paint and "make their mark" on a highway overpass or the side of a building.

Modern graffiti generally falls into one of three categories - junk graffiti, gang graffiti, and tagging. Junk graffiti messages are not gang-related but often involve obscene, racist, or threatening themes. The line separating gang graffiti and tagging has become blurred in recent years. Tagging, once seen as a nonviolent alternative to more threatening gang activities, is now considered an entry level offense that can lead to more serious crimes, including burglary and assault.(2) In addition, tagging often results in direct gang affiliation. While all types of graffiti threaten the quality of life in affected areas, tagging and graffiti tied to gang activities represent the most widespread and formidable challenges to communities around the country.

GRAFFITI AND THE GANG SUBCULTURE 

Tagging

Tagging as a form of graffiti first appeared in the early 1980s and has grown immensely popular in many parts of the country, in both rural and urban areas. A tagger is someone who adopts a nickname, or tag, and then writes it on as many surfaces as possible, usually in highly visible locations. Although spray paint is the most common medium, taggers - sometimes referred to as "piecers," "writers," and "hip-hop artists" - also may use magic markers or etching tools to create their images.

The motivation behind tagging involves fame, artistic expression. power, and rebellion - all integral parts of what has been referred to as the hip-hop culture. Tagging may fill an even deeper void for youths without a strong sense of personal identity. Interviews with taggers reveal a deep desire simply to be known, to create an identity for themselves, and to communicate it to others.(3) The thrill of risktaking also appears to be an underlying motivation for many taggers.

While the images taggers create may not necessarily be gang-related, research shows that most taggers hope to join gangs and use tagging as a way to gain the attention of gang members.(4) The more often their monikers appear in different locations, the more publicity they receive. Consequently, a small number of taggers can cause a disproportionate amount of property damage in a community.

Tagging messages usually resemble handwriting, but may be difficult, if not impossible, to read. Taggers also have been known to invent their own letters or symbols, often adding to the confusion over the message and the author.

Taggers, either vying for the favor of gang members or operating as rogue vandals, use graffiti to:

* Mark or claim territory

* Gain recognition with little fear of arrest

* Threaten or show disrespect to rival gangs or taggers

* Express themselves artistically

* Identify a specific gang

* Immortalize dead gang members.

Often, gang graffiti and gang-related tagging serve an additional purpose - communication. In fact, graffiti as a means to communicate territoriality has become a central element of the gang subculture.

Communication and Territoriality

In an article about the increase in area gang violence, a local California newspaper accurately described graffiti as a "crude but effective way for gang members to communicate among themselves, with the community, and with rival gangs."(5) Communication is an important attribute of graffiti that law enforcement and community leaders should understand as they attempt to address the problem. While neighborhood residents and police might see graffiti simply as a blight, gang members and many taggers view it not so much as property damage but as a means to send messages understood within the gang community.(6)

The expressive value of graffiti also forms an important component of gang territoriality. Gangs, and potential gang members, use graffiti to identify and mark their territory. Although the traditional perception of gang territoriality has been altered by increased mobility via the automobile, research of a noted gang expert indicates that gangs continue to "mark, define, claim, protect, and fight over their turf."(7) In fact, territoriality among rival gangs continues to be a major source of gang violence.(8) Graffiti as a primary form of communication and turf identification plays a direct part in feeding this violence.

TRUE IMPACT OF GRAFFITI

The threat posed by graffiti to neighborhoods and society in general goes much deeper than territorial gang violence. Community leaders need only consider the reverberating effects of graffiti to understand how a seemingly low-grade misdemeanor can threaten or destroy the quality of life in an entire community.

The monetary damages attributed to graffiti speak for themselves. In 1992 alone, the City of Los Angeles spent more than $15 million on graffiti eradication. This figure does not include the volunteer time devoted to graffiti cleanup or the estimated millions of dollars spent by private businesses taking care of the problem themselves. In addition, the Southern California Rapid Transit District spent $12 million on graffiti removal during the same year.(9)

Denver, Colorado, spends approximately $1 million each year on graffiti cleanup; Sacramento, California, $48,000.(10) According to the National Graffiti Information Network, graffiti eradication costs the public $4 billion a year.(11)

But the financial burden of cleanup is only one aspect of the toll graffiti takes on communities. Graffiti has a more subtle, but no less profound, impact on the aesthetic quality of a community and the psychological well-being of citizens. A January 8, 1992, article appearing in a Los Angeles newspaper examined the impact of graffiti in the city:

The toll on the population is high - in the millions of dollars to eradicate it, in decreased property values, in the crime experts say it spawns, and in the more intangible psychic costs of living in a city that looks as though it is under siege.(12)

In this same article, James Q. Wilson, UCLA criminologist and framer of the "broken windows" theory, states that signs of disorder in society - such as graffiti, abandoned cars, broken windows, and uncollected trash - frighten law-abiding citizens into avoiding public places. Those places are then left to criminals who further deface them, creating a downward spiral in which the fear of crime leads to an increase in criminal activity.(13)

The presence of graffiti discourages citizens from shopping or living in affected areas. As established businesses relocate or close, new businesses might be reluctant to move into areas where customers would feel unsafe. As property values decline and law-abiding citizens with resources move, once-thriving neighborhoods can quickly degrade into dangerous places. Thus, the seemingly trivial offense of graffiti ultimately can have devastating consequences for a community.(14)

RESPONSE

Most experts agree that allowing graffiti to remain visible in a community sends a message that this type of behavior is acceptable to residents. Further, allowing graffiti in an area encourages other offenders to degrade the community with more graffiti or other acts of vandalism. As stated in a newspaper article, "...removing graffiti as soon as it appears is the best way to deter further vandalism."(15)

Recognizing the serious threat posed by graffiti, a number of communities across the country have developed programs to respond to the problem. The City of Anaheim, California, is considered a leader in developing innovative programs dealing with taggers and the damage they cause.

The city developed "Adopt-a-Block" and "Wipeout Graffiti" programs and also established a 24-hour graffiti hotline that encourages residents to report graffiti damage, as well as information about suspects. Information leading to an arrest and conviction can net the caller up to $500.

The hotline has proven to be quite successful. To date, callers have received more than $16,500 for information provided about offenders. The courts sentence convicted taggers to perform community service that includes graffiti removal.(16) Anaheim also adopted an antigraffiti ordinance that assigns responsibility for the cost of graffiti removal to taggers, prohibits possession of implements used to create graffiti, and requires merchants to keep aerosol spray cans or other implements used to create graffiti out of direct reach of the general public.(17)

In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, "Operation Wipe Out" is designed specifically to eradicate graffiti throughout the city. As part of the program, Pittsburgh established an antigraffiti trust fund to pay tipsters for information leading to the arrest and conviction of graffiti vandals.

In Fresno, California, the "Graffiti Action Program" combines city and county resources to provide a graffiti hotline and a mobile graffiti removal unit. In addition, two police investigators focus exclusively on gathering evidence against taggers.

The City of Aurora, Illinois, enacted an ordinance that prohibits minors from possessing cans of spray paint unless they are being supervised by a parent or employer or use the paint as part of a supervised activity at a school or church. City council members in St. Paul, Minnesota, are considering an ordinance that would make it a misdemeanor for a person to possess spray paint or wide tipped permanent-ink markers if their intended use is to deface property.

To enhance graffiti-related investigations, Orange County, California, uses a forensic scientist specializing in handwriting analysis to help identify chronic offenders. Several other localities in California have passed ordinances calling for convicted taggers to perform up to 80 hours of graffiti removal as part of their sentences.

THE FUTURE

Although these approaches represent a step in the right direction, they are reactive measures and do little to address the causes of the graffiti problem. The causes lie deep within the roots of social structure; it will require much more than rollers and paint to correct the problem.

One of the first steps is to educate the public about graffiti - its meaning and its potential impact on a community. Citizens must understand that this type of behavior cannot be tolerated because its insidious nature threatens communities from within.

To deter new graffiti, young people should be taught that their actions can have far-reaching consequences. Law enforcement agencies may consider augmenting drug- and gang-prevention efforts with lessons on graffiti. Students should be advised that damaging property with graffiti is a serious crime and offenders will be punished. As part of the lesson, instructors also may suggest and encourage alternative methods of self-expression.

CONCLUSION

Like prostitution and illegal gambling, people often view graffiti as a victimless crime. But as communities around the country have learned, there is no such thing as a victimless crime. In fact, crimes that do not produce a single, identifiable victim generally have more impact on the entire community.

As a highly visible offense, graffiti represents a particularly menacing threat to the quality of life in a community. The residual effects of reduced property values, lost business, increased gang territoriality, and heightened fear of crime escalate the severity of graffiti-related offenses beyond their impact as visual pollution. Communities that do not develop measures to deter and prevent graffiti now may find themselves confronting more intractable problems in the future.

Endnotes

1 Waln K. Brown, "Gangways: An Expressive Culture Approach to Understanding Gang Delinquency," unpublished thesis, (1976).

2 David Ogul, "Drop Paint Cans, Grab Weapons," Riverside, California, Press Enterprise, January 22, 1995.

3 Dan Korem, Suburban Gangs (Richardson, TX: International Focus Press, 1994).

4 Daniel Scatz, "Graffiti Paint Outs," FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, June 1992, 1-4.

5 Supra note 2.

6 Supra note 1.

7 Arnold P. Goldstein, Delinquent Gangs: A Psychological Perspective (Champaign, IL: Research Press, 1991).

8 Ibid.

9 Dale Vargas, "New Wave of Graffiti Vandals Making Mark in Capital," Sacramento, California, Bee, June 15, 1992.

10 Ibid.

11 Supra note 9.

12 Sheryl Stolberg, "Engulfed in a Sea of Spray Paint," Los Angeles, California, Times, January 8, 1992.

13 Ibid.

14 Stephanie Slahor, "Fighting Graffiti: Efforts to Stop Visual Terror," Law and Order, May 1994, 95-96.

15 Supra note 12.

16 Joseph T. Malloy and Ted LaBahn, "Operation Getup Targets Taggers to Curb Gang-Related Graffiti," The Police Chief, October 1993, 120-123.

17 Ibid.

RELATED ARTICLE: Rapid City's Graffiti Eradication Project

In the spring of 1995, the Rapid City, South Dakota, Police Department initiated the Graffiti Eradication Project. As part of the program, officers from the department's gang task force respond immediately to sites where gang-related, obscene, or racist graffiti appears. The officers photograph the graffiti and document the incident and location. They then cover the message with spray paint and place the site on an eradication list. Approximately every month, the Graffiti Eradication Team "recovers" all of the sites on the list. The team, headed by personnel from the police department, consists primarily of volunteers from community organizations, service clubs, and church groups.

Results have been impressive. In three formal eradication projects during the spring and summer of 1995, the Graffiti Eradication Team recovered over 100 different sites with paint provided by the Rapid City Parks Department.

Due to its success, the Graffiti Eradication Project has received a very positive response from the community and positive coverage from the local media. Individual citizens and businesses have offered to provide paint and other supplies to further the effort.

Lieutenant Grant serves with the Rapid City, South Dakota, Police department.