Getting to the bottom of the graffiti problem
March 8th 2010 06:35
VYOOS EDITORIAL
Sometimes, the best decisions in law are innovative moments of colour splashed on grey areas of inefficacy.
The ideal judicial system is one which protects both the citizens of a community and the rights of those citizens. But the law can be a platform of social justice made of quicksand. It can never cover all eventualities, and if people try to make it do so, the law can be an ass.
An example surfaced in San Juan del Rio in Queretaro state, central Mexico, late last week, when police caught a 13-year-old boy spray-painting graffiti tags on municipal property. They took the boy to a municipal official whose job it was to deal with petty offences.
The official decided that, in this case, a lesson about vandalism and the sanctity of other people's property might be learned if he spray-painted the boy's buttocks.
So he did.
The San Juan del Rio mayor promptly fired the official, saying he should have played it by the book and informed the boy's parents, who would then be responsible for paying for the graffiti to be removed.
In today's carefully sanitised and correct world, the mayor was right. Informing the parents, and forcing them to pay for the damage, was the legally mandated and sensible thing to do. It is interesting, however, that this action would in no obvious way have given the boy a demonstration of why his behaviour was considered unacceptable.
To be fair, the official went too far. You can not pull down the pants of anyone, let alone a 13-year-old, and spray-paint their bum to make a point. But perhaps the point could have been made anecdotally — imagine how you would feel if I violated your property, to wit, your bottom, by taking this spray can and ...
If, next weekend, the 13-year-old boy decides after consideration that he is no longer inclined to spray-paint graffiti on municipal property, do you think we will have the mayor, who still has his job, to thank, or the official who no longer has his job?
Sometimes, the best decisions in law are innovative moments of colour splashed on grey areas of inefficacy.
The ideal judicial system is one which protects both the citizens of a community and the rights of those citizens. But the law can be a platform of social justice made of quicksand. It can never cover all eventualities, and if people try to make it do so, the law can be an ass.
An example surfaced in San Juan del Rio in Queretaro state, central Mexico, late last week, when police caught a 13-year-old boy spray-painting graffiti tags on municipal property. They took the boy to a municipal official whose job it was to deal with petty offences.
The official decided that, in this case, a lesson about vandalism and the sanctity of other people's property might be learned if he spray-painted the boy's buttocks.
So he did.
The San Juan del Rio mayor promptly fired the official, saying he should have played it by the book and informed the boy's parents, who would then be responsible for paying for the graffiti to be removed.
In today's carefully sanitised and correct world, the mayor was right. Informing the parents, and forcing them to pay for the damage, was the legally mandated and sensible thing to do. It is interesting, however, that this action would in no obvious way have given the boy a demonstration of why his behaviour was considered unacceptable.
To be fair, the official went too far. You can not pull down the pants of anyone, let alone a 13-year-old, and spray-paint their bum to make a point. But perhaps the point could have been made anecdotally — imagine how you would feel if I violated your property, to wit, your bottom, by taking this spray can and ...
If, next weekend, the 13-year-old boy decides after consideration that he is no longer inclined to spray-paint graffiti on municipal property, do you think we will have the mayor, who still has his job, to thank, or the official who no longer has his job?
| 48 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
