It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Graffiti girl jailed for first offence

page: 11
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Destroying a girl's immediate future for writing her name on a wall is an extreme example of a system that is broken and failed. The civil uprisings around the globe might help to show the law and the lawmakers how frail they really are.


If she was running around at 17/18 tagging her nickname on public property. I very much doubt that she'll be missing too much university in the next 3 months...

I'm for the rattan in things like this. I'm sick of little cretins who think they can run around vandalising others property and then bragging about the few months they spend in the lockup with their mates, as a badge of honor.

Especially for little idiots like this clown:

'Graffiti is great and remand is a breeze' - train surfer




posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
That young lady looks quite intelligent to me in the press release photo. She looks like she is from a decent family, educated, not a bum or gang member.


Are you looking at the same picture I am?

Or are you just joking... Seriously?




posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I can see the need for one's self expression in various venues. If this girl's MO is tagging things there is a legal way of doing just that. Not to mention it's pretty cool. I wouldn't mind learning how to do this.



www.youtube.com...

[edit on 2-2-2009 by Mogwomp]

[edit on 2-2-2009 by Mogwomp]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Some may see this sentence as harsh, I know I do, but there is a reason for it.
Each year millions, like 3 million $$ for Sydney City(where this girl was caught) is spent fighting graffiti and vandalism. Community action groups(groups set up to provide venues and areas for legal graffiti and tagging), community work based sentences and fines are not working and city council and local councils have been pressuring State govt. and law enforcement to change tactics for years now. Hence the sentence.
Currently under the state govt. legislation offenders under 18 are given three warnings before being referred to juvenile justice services. Yes, that is right, they can be caught three times and let off....with nothing. The costs of their actions are incurred by the individuals, businesses and local govt. So this girl may have been an offender previously but has no convictions recorded that would be considered by the Judge of her matter, this ONE that was brought before the court.
In 2007 our state govt. announced it intended to start its crack down on Graffiti after being pressure by the Local Govt. Associations attack on its lazy stance, it campaigned heavily in 2006 to promote action in the State Govt.2006-Graffiti policy just doesn't wash, councils say New laws relating to spray paint where introduced in 2006, and slightly added to in 2007, but this had little effect as it related mostly to the sale and possession of spray paint
This saw them invest almost half a million dollars in prevention, repair and reporting of graffiti.State Govt. Attorney Generals response to Graffiti

It also led to the Govt. setting up this site.Stop Graffiti Vandalism- NSW law link
Surprisingly, this site tells people that new laws have been introduced, in late December of 2008, as part of the ongoing attempts to stop graffiti vandalism. That these will be enforced in 2009.

New graffiti laws for New South Wales
The NSW Government has announced tough new laws to fight graffiti vandalism. The Graffiti Control Act (the Act) received Royal Assent on 3 December 2008 and is due to commence in early 2009.


I think the girl was dealt harshly, but if you look at the laws now, she was lucky.

These laws provide the courts with a number of ways to deal with graffiti offenders ranging from fines, bonds, community service orders to prison sentences.
For example:
Section 195 of the Crimes Act – up to 5 years imprisonment for maliciously damaging property
Section 10A of the Summary Offences Act – a fine of up to $2,200 or 6 months imprisonment for damaging or defacing property by means of spray paint
Section 10B of the Summary Offences Act – a fine of up to $1,100 or 3 months imprisonment for possessing spray paint with the intention to damage or deface property.
Lucky she only used a marker hey. Well no, she was lucky the Judge did not enforce this part of the act.

The Act also expands the definition of graffiti implements so that it includes spray paint, any marker pen and other implements designed or modified to produce a mark.

Given that she is 18 now, she faces the full weight of the law that can be brought against her as an adult and as an offender. This is not societies fault, or the laws. It is the individuals,who choose to act in a manner which then sees them put in a position where they can be dealt with, even harshly.
We see this sentence as harsh because historically, our courts are lenient, tolerant and compassionate and, even patient with these minor crimes. The compassion of the courts in this case has now been withdrawn due to the fact that it has been ignored or taken for granted by individuals that continue committing such crimes at great cost to others. Again this is not societies fault, or the courts. We did not put this girl in a position where the courts need to act in a manner that it is intended for.

It will cost 40k to detain this girl over the three months, but this would seem like a logical gamble by the law in trying to reduce the millions in costs incurred cleaning graffiti, by trying to scare these individuals off from offending.

But are we to be tolerant of crime at the expense of other peoples property and do we just absorb the cost incurred in removing graffiti and repairing vandalism. Are we to shrug our shoulders and sigh "those kids", they will grow up. I mean this girl was 18, I knew to graffiti someone's property was wrong when I was 10!
This sentence is not a knee jerk over-reaction, but the result of 3 years of public policy, resources and funds being funnelled into an ongoing struggle against graffiti and vandalism. It is a result of tolerance, patience and compassion being ignored. It is a result of people being fed up with their rights being violated and ignored at a cost to them only. It is a result of other law abiding members, businesses and local governments asking and pleading for action. It is the result of the law being broken and our system being asked to act.
We can now see the results.
Are you so shocked now? I am not shocked. I will agree that it is harsh. But then again, I have always known that the law can be as harsh as it is tolerant, understanding and compassionate. The courts are there to extend or refuse these graces as it sees fit, not to please us, or to act as a mechanism of revenge either, but with the best interest of us all in these matters that relate to the custodial sentences handed to other members of that very society, other members that break the laws. In this case, in light of the lengths and costs that local and state govt. has gone too, it seems clear that sentencing is now in the interests of us all. Given the costs, the damage, the level of graffiti and incidence, I tend to agree. As harsh as it is. Someone has to pay, and now it will be those who commit the crime as well, as to date it seems that the victims have been the only ones that have been paying.
There is no police state mentality here, or courts gone mad, its just fed up members of communities, sick of having their property damaged, having to pay for it and see nothing done to those that commit such acts. That has now changed. Our courts are not nannies or parents. Our courts are there to enforce the law. The laws are set by our elected officials. These laws went through both houses without being challenged. They where not sneaked through, nor where they unheralded. No member voiced concern from its electorate that these laws seemed draconian or excessive. Not one member, not even from the opposition. Not one. It was introduced in Oct. 2008. Then the Legislative Council in Nov. 2008 where it was passed and the assented to in Dec. 2008.

Personally, I believe we will see a few other harsh penalties to educate the public of the serious nature our state now vies such crime and to ensure that law abiding members are being protected and then this aspect of the laws will probably become the norm in terms of sentencing.

Clause
15 provides that a court can sentence a person who has committed an offence under clauses 4 and 5 to
community service and, as part of that order, require that person to clean up the graffiti. The clause consolidates
the provisions formerly contained in the Summary Offences Act in relation to the corresponding graffiti offences
in that Act. Clause 16 provides for police officers and other persons prescribed by regulation to issue penalty
notices for offences relating to the sale and display of spray paint, as set out in clauses 7 and 8.






[edit on 2-2-2009 by atlasastro]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

this is really upsetting. just because a person writes there name on a wall, they're a criminal??? that's silly. graffiti is a form of art, wether people like to admit it or not. ART IS NOT A CRIME!!! i hope she bombs the hell out of sydney when she gets out of jail.
did anyone judge alexander the great when he put his mark on the pyramids in egypt?
& what does this person mean by the "me generation"??? they should get their history straight. graffiti has been around since the first man making his mark on walls in caves.
i don't know about anyone else here, but everyone should be able to make their mark on the world, not just people who can afford to own business, or law mwakers, or people of high stature.
i've been a graffiti artist for 17 years now, been arrested a few times for it too. & ya know what? i'm proud of the marks i've made on society. & i'm gonna keep doing it, over, & over, & over...



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
www.smh.com.au...


Cafe manager: she should be made to clean up

But the manager of a cafe vandalised by Back says the three-month prison term is too harsh.

Hyde Park Cafe manager Song Wang says the girl should be forced to wash off graffiti from walls all over the city instead of going to jail.

"You know it was really frustrating when she did it, but the whole group did it, not just her," Mrs Wang said.

"I think it's a little bit harsh (and) I really prefer the government doing something more ... some more video cameras and give her the education about it instead of jail.

"Maybe she can do some community work or something, such as letting her clean all the graffiti off, let her know how hard the work is she makes."


There you have it, straight from the horses mouth. Even the CAFE OWNER thinks the punishment was too harsh and that she should have been forced to clean it up, not waste taxpayer money in jail.

Not to mention there was a whole group of them doing it and she was the one singled out.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
LOL.........

So so many posts condoning the jailing of a 1st time offender ..............................

Shame on you all, Like i said b4... lets hope none of you run a red light in your car.... WOW behold....... That means because she scribbled on a wall with a pen and got 3 months then if you run a light even by accident u will do 20 years yes?

You are sad scum who condone this....... Lets see you beg for mercy when you are ditched as traitors for your ATS membership.....



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bloodcircle

Originally posted by RFBurns
That young lady looks quite intelligent to me in the press release photo. She looks like she is from a decent family, educated, not a bum or gang member.


Are you looking at the same picture I am?

Or are you just joking... Seriously?



The picture from the article posted by the OP.

2nd line goes here



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties
www.smh.com.au...


Cafe manager: she should be made to clean up

But the manager of a cafe vandalised by Back says the three-month prison term is too harsh.

Hyde Park Cafe manager Song Wang says the girl should be forced to wash off graffiti from walls all over the city instead of going to jail.

"You know it was really frustrating when she did it, but the whole group did it, not just her," Mrs Wang said.

"I think it's a little bit harsh (and) I really prefer the government doing something more ... some more video cameras and give her the education about it instead of jail.

"Maybe she can do some community work or something, such as letting her clean all the graffiti off, let her know how hard the work is she makes."


There you have it, straight from the horses mouth. Even the CAFE OWNER thinks the punishment was too harsh and that she should have been forced to clean it up, not waste taxpayer money in jail.

Not to mention there was a whole group of them doing it and she was the one singled out.


Well where was this cafe owner during this young woman's trial to voice their opinion? If it wasnt such a bad thing, and the owner felt it was not that big of a deal, then they should have been there at the trial on the young lady's behalf.

This is all just more BS and quite frankly some of you here are being caught up in it hook line and sinker.

Go bark at the cafe owner and the judge and the legal system.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


RFBurns mate, no offense but you don't know what you are talking about. Take a look at her picture in THIS article and tell me if she looks 'upstanding'.....

www.smh.com.au...

Incidentally, read the bit at the bottom where the CAFE OWNER admits the punishment is harsh and she would prefer the girl to be ordered to clean it up. Shouldn't the CAFE OWNER get a say in this, seeing as it was their property?

reply to post by atlasastro
 


It will cost 40k to detain this girl over the three months, but this would seem like a logical gamble by the law in trying to reduce the millions in costs incurred cleaning graffiti, by trying to scare these individuals off from offending.


Is there an 'opt-out' program where I can opt out of paying my precious taxpayer dollars to this farce? I want no part of it thankyou.

[edit on 2/2/2009 by Kryties]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by atlasastro
This is not societies fault, or the laws. It is the individuals,who choose to act in a manner which then sees them put in a position where they can be dealt with, even harshly.

Of course it is the law's fault that she's been sentenced to jail. There's no question that she drew on the wall. However, the disproportionate sentence is a DIRECT result of the absurd laws in place.



our courts are lenient, tolerant and compassionate and, even patient with these minor crimes.

All of the above applies to a three month jail term for writing on a wall, does it?



This sentence is not a knee jerk over-reaction, but the result of 3 years of public policy, resources and funds being funnelled into an ongoing struggle against graffiti and vandalism.

I'd sure hate to see what a knee jerk over-reaction is...



It is a result of tolerance, patience and compassion being ignored.

You got that right. A three month jail sentence does show lack of compassion.



There is no police state mentality here, or courts gone mad ...

Personally, I believe we will see a few other harsh penalties to educate the public of the serious nature our state now vies such crime and to ensure that law abiding members are being protected and then this aspect of the laws will probably become the norm in terms of sentencing.

So it's not a police state, but we're going to see the full force of the law and harsher penalties smacking down on teenagers with textas. Ah-huh.

We've got to make sure that everyone feels safe, don't we? What a way to educate the public!

[edit on 2-2-2009 by tezzajw]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns

Well where was this cafe owner during this young woman's trial to voice their opinion? If it wasnt such a bad thing, and the owner felt it was not that big of a deal, then they should have been there at the trial on the young lady's behalf.


That's crap and you know it. The Cafe owner could not have known the judge would be so damned harsh because the laws had literally only been introduced a few days earlier. Your point is completely mute.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


Whatever man. Look if your so hung up over this young lady's sentance then get off your duff and go protest in front of the court house and hold up a sign in support for this young lady instead of plastering your rants here that wont do you or this young lady any good.

Everyone loves to be the outspoken advocate of protecting others rights yet when it comes right down to it...you are just like all the other armchair protestors, you will rant and rave in a forum yet not actually do something to back up your bark.

The law is the law, the gal broke the law, now has to pay the price as an adult. Dont like that? Oh well. Go protest to your government, the city council, the lawmakers, the courts. Show up for this young lady's appeal, write to the judge, do something besides throw your worthless ranting around in a forum and do something that will really make a difference.



L8r.



Cheers!!!!



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
A lot of self righteous pricks in this thread.

She wrote her name on a wall, who the # cares? The cafe wanted $200 in damages and that would have been enough.

Instead she gets 3 months and since she is 18 it won't be on her minor record and it will affect her life.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Oh so now you are reduced to insulting me? Worthless ranting am I?

There goes intelligent discussion, I will not be a part of this any longer. I will leave you armchair/basement judges to your own devices and God help you if you ever get arrested for something minor and then come crying to us because the judge sentenced you too harshly.

Adios.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kryties


Is there an 'opt-out- program where I can opt out of paying my precious taxpayer dollars to this farce? I want no part of it thankyou.


Are you opting out of society Kryties?
Your dollars are paying for the cleaning. Where do you think your rates go?
You pay it aross the counter at buisnesses who incur costs. You incur a cost at the expense to other sectors of public interest, like transport, roads and hospitals who compete with funds that are funneled into public policy decisions that fight graffiti. You are paying already. We all are. That is why the policy is to inprison now. I agree it is harsh. We are paying, and now it seems the state wants the criminals to pay too. Go figure. Imagine a society that is sick of footing the bill for criminal behaviour wanting to enforce a punishment. Unbelievable, I know!
If you are serious about opting out, here is what you do.
Why not set up a legal graffiti site at your house. Umm yep. Set up a site so these harmless innocent people can graffiti. So you don't have to incur any costs. Because if they can graffiti at your place then they won't be damaging others property. So they won't get arrested. So you don't have to pay for jail time and others don't have to pay for the cleaning bill.
Sounds good to me. Opt out bro. Go on, think of what we will all save. Can you post some pics of your legal graffitied house for us. Cheers bro.


What are those of us supposed to do if we like our places of buisness and residence graffiti free?
I know its her first conviction. But will this sentence mean it will be her last?
Will it deter others?
Will it appease other members of our society?
Will it free up funds and costs that can be spent on more essential services?

p.s. Let me know when you post those pics of your legal graffiti house will ya, Graffiti looks better than wall paper in my opinion. Make sure they use water based, you can clean it easier and they can re-use the walls. Thanks for opting out bro. You rock.


[edit on 2-2-2009 by atlasastro]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
The judge was trying to send a message. That they don't care how old you are or what your record is. If you deface private property you will have the book thrown at you. Giving this girl jail time was a smart tactical move that will sure make other people think twice after hearing this story. Yes I kind of feel bad for the girl, But she's a casualty of war. She must fall to get the message through. Ever wonder why a lot of fast food joints don't have mirrors in their restrooms any more? Cause all these cool gangstas scratch them up with there gang names and crap like that, that not to mention only if you stare at the graffiti for a while can you actually tell what it says. High five to that judge.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 08:51 PM
link   
Ehhhhh I don't know, honestly I think 3 months of revoked constitution (any kind of prison) is a bit harsh. Probably getting us more and more used to it anyway. She's a woman yeah, but doesn't seem all that knowledgable about the world. Could influence her for the worse.

I remember when I was a kid, in 6th grade, I stole turkey sticks from Safeway everyday before school. I thought I was the hottest turd in the toilet. Then one day I got busted, oh man I was so scared, but the manager at the Safeway was very kind to me, and told me not to do it again, and then told me that I shouldn't come to that HEB for awhile. I never forgot her kindness and have never stolen ANYTHING since. Just the thought of it makes me think about that Safeway manager and makes me feel like crap.

My step sister on the other hand, got put into juvenile hall for stealing some clothing at MACYS. Yep, she's in federal prison now for identity theft. Maybe if someone showed her some compassion, she would have ended up like me and turned a new cheek.

Overall, I think we as a society are hardening punishment because there's not enough problem solving. We cannot solve a certain problem so we write a law for it. Laws are not solutions.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by LeTan]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by RFBurns
Does it matter if she used paint, sharpie, blood, lipstick?
No it doesnt.

You realise that you didn't read the article though, right? Deny ignorance and put her 'crime' into perspective. It was a black texta. Probably a crime of opportunity, who knows. She might have been a uni student and had one in her bag. Having a can of spray paint might suggest something more premeditated.
[edit on 2-2-2009 by tezzajw]



She just got out of detox for alcohol 2 weeks ago according to her bebo profile and is ready to get back into the goon:



yeaaaa ayyy

only 4 daiis ayy but thats good either for me

n i myt drink but i dnt know ayy depends lol

nah it doesnt cost #t ayy n its maddd lol

im not sure bout the plans jus yet ayyy

umm i lost my fone n so has neakah so i dnt got ur numba...!!!

love ya tooo bitch face xox

yea i myt cum there soon dunno yet ay

ttyl tc xoxox


I doub't shes a UNI student

Nice motto also -


LIVE WID HONOUR
DIE WID RESPECT
STEAL FROM THE RICH
HANG WITH THE POOR
[bleep] THE WORLD
[bleep] THE LAW..


Somehow I think this little shy waif is not going to be fulfilling your vision of the model citizen you think she will be. Just look at her profile pictures.

Yo homies, gangsta 4 lyf. pfft.





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join