Graffiti girl jailed for first offence

Here is another reason why we see these penalties.
Kryties, here is where your bills are going bro.

This, below, is clearly another reason why Govt, both local and state level have legislated tough laws and Law enforcement and Courts are starting to hand out sentences.

YOUTHS and drunken louts are trashing NSW at a record rate, with graffiti or vandalism being reported to police every five minutes.

Malicious damage incidents have climbed sharply - as other crimes are falling - leaving councils and state government agencies with an estimated $200 million clean-up bill last year.

www.news.com.au...

$200 million dollars, and this is only the public sector. What is the private incurring?
This is what the police have to deal with....WTF.

The Daily Telegraph can reveal new figures showing police handled 107,586 graffiti and malicious damage reports last year.

And people are screaming that this is an over reaction. Please!.
Its obvious, people have had enough, councils have had enough and the state Govt. has had enough.
But its only her first offence I hear you say.
After 107,586 other incidences, tolerance finally ran out. Compasion was exhausted, patience had run dry, as dry as the coffers of the councils and govt. of the people, for the people, law abiding people, honest people, hard working people.
For those of you that cry Injustice, and those that criticise the firm nature of this court, where is your voice when victims are left with the mess, where is your support of the public servants that are tied by the same tolerance and compassion that renders them useless against offenders that have long been favoured by those very graces.
I am sick to my back teeth at the re-actionaries that sit impotent in there own society, grossly ignorant and all the while slef-rightous. These very people that attack the laws, those that make them, those that enforce them, yet they seem to care little about why or how these laws come about, maybe even ignoring or failing to participate in the system that generates such laws and sentences. A system that serves them. I hear sheeple bandied about here quiet often.

You may scream at the injustice of the end result without even asking how we got there. You can derive conclusions from one act and draw a picture of courts as tyranny all the while ignoring those that the court has no such liberty to ignore, the victims, the society, those that act in a way that does not break the law and cost us all nought. You offer no solutions other than, this is too harsh, you make excuses for the individual that broke the law and offer little to show that the law has other, unexplored or tested options in enforcing legislation aimed at protecting private and public property.
This is the real world, some people do not give a %^&* about what they do. Sometimes we have to deal with that in a way that says, we ain't taking your $%^& anymore, from anyone, at any time, period.
After $200,000,000 dollars and 100k calls in one year, the State of NSW ain't taking this @#$% any more, from anyone.

CONVERSATIONS YOU WON'T HEAR.
GRAFFITI KID 1:3 months for writing your name on the wall, man that is harsh, maybe I won't graffiti this property that is owned by another person or possiblly belongs to the state and is also used by other members of society that I share.

GRAFFITI KID 2: Dude, current NSW legislation recently passed by both houses states that 6 months inprisonment and up to $2,000 dollars in fines are applicable, 3 months if you are lucky, lucky to ponder what 6 months would be like. Given the risk involved in satisfying my own selfish need to label any public or private property with a tag or symbol relevant to my sub-culture or affiliated group or groups, I am now inclined to refraime from partaking in what was previously looked upon as a minor offence often tolerated by the juvenile and criminal courts and often let go with warnings, community services or miniscule fines. Add to this no liability in aiding those victim of said minor offences in recovering any cost, losses and such and we now have a new paradigm of criminal risk/self reward versus criminal risk/societal punishment. I think you need to put the lid back on that texta while we re-evaluate the consequences of our previously harmless endeavour, and I believe I need to specify that it was harmless to us yet was not so to those, the victims of said previously harmless actions.

GRAFFITI KID 1: Yes(placing lid back on texta), I see the conundrum we now face, all be it that this is entirely solvable, it still presents some what of a problem. Do I not graffiti and therefor not worry about the tyranny you mention, that being the spectre of a court no longer favouring such endeavours as tolerable and unworthy of punishment in so much as inprisonment, or do I not give a @#$% as I have done so in the past, possibly inspired by said courts graces as evident in the historical context of previously administered judgement often resulting in little or no real punishment, now delivering a judgement entirely without such a grace, terrorfying indeed. Yes, shall we sit over there and ponder this.

GRAFFITI KID 2: No, not over there, some @#$% has written all over it white marker and I don't want these new baggies marked.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Believe me, if she had have spat at the judge and thrown chairs, or even just chucked a tantrum in court, the Aussie media would be all over it like crap on velcro. As this is not the case, it is unfair and unjust to make these sorts of accusations simply to make a point that she deserves 3 months jail.

The very fact that today a bloke got let off on graffiti charges with a simple good behaviour bond, when this girl gets 3 months for being a first time offender, is a complete joke and a waste of taxpayer resources.

People say you should not judge a book by its cover yada yada ya....

But looking at these photos I would suggest that girl needs to be slapped and told being a hip-hop loser still tagging at 18 is sad and pathetic.

Even at my most drunk/drugged up stages of my youth I did not look that retarded.

Hang her till she be dead I say.....

reply to post by Kryties


On inequality in sentencing I agree with you. It is wrong.

On a particular decision based on information we don't have or did not witness? How could I even have a valid opinion?

reply to post by Blaine91555


Ok, what is your point? These picture's justify the reasoning of the ridiculous sentence? So she's going through her wild/rebellious stage, who didn't/doesn't? I went through my wild/rebellious times between the ages 13-22 as well. So she has pictures like these, big deal, I have lots of pictures similar to this, and of pictures of me passed out drunk on a bathroom floor, there's even a picture of me pissing off a bridge , should I have gone to jail for contaminating a contaminated river? Does that reflect who I am now? No, I just out grew out of it, like this girl will too. It doesn't matter if there is more to the story, she is a first time offender and this not a big deal crime. She wrote her name on a wall, did she murder someone? Did she bust someones windows, did she assault someone? Nope.

reply to post by Blaine91555


Please don't get me wrong mate, I understand what you are saying, any annoyance in my posts is not directed at you. My posts are more directed at those who have already stated that 'she looks like a crim, smells like a crim therefore must be punished as harshly as possible.'

Originally posted by Blaine91555
For all you know she spit on the Judges face or threw a chair at him/her. Who knows?

Then the judge would have had her charged with contempt of court and she would have spent life behind bars.

A judge CAN NOT be influenced by the behaviour of the defendent when sentencing. Did you read the OP? She was crying as the verdict was read - hardly the actions of a spitting chair-thrower.

What more is there to a story about a girl writing her name on a wall and getting a three month jail sentence for it? It's amusing watching some people in this thread, digging for there to be more to the story... trying to justify why she got a sentence of three months behind bars.

Originally posted by atlasastro
you make excuses for the individual that broke the law and offer little to show that the law has other, unexplored or tested options in enforcing legislation aimed at protecting private and public property.

No one is making excuses for her writing her name on the wall. She did it. She made a mistake.

The only people making excuses in this thread, are those who are trying to justify why she deserves three months in jail.

Here's an option that the law HAS NOT tried with HER. How about fining her $200, making her clean the graffitti and work a few hours in the cafe washing floors?

Why hasn't the law tried that with HER before it decided to throw HER in jail?

A couple of serious points to make ( no evidence just theory )....

(1) I have seen judges give short sentences to habitual drug users to "help" them dry out. Even though that is not the reason given .

(2) She may be able to apply for home detention and not spend 1 day inside. The offical sentence is just the starting point for that process.

reply to post by thedeadtruth


I have stated before that yes, we all know that she is going to appeal, and will most likely be given a lighter sentence. THIS IS NOT THE POINT. The fact that she was initially given the 3 month sentence will remain forever in her file and a black mark against her name.

Remember, this is a first time offender - NEVER in the history of first time offenders have I seen a court give out a jail sentence for something as small as graffiti. Never.

I wrote my name in some council concrete after it was poured many years ago.

It's still there, it might even outlast me.

I never got in trouble even though it states exactly who did it.

I worked for a while as a concreter, I always put my name and date on the pour.

reply to post by NotDeadYet


There is a little church at a place called Mitta Mitta near Junee, NSW that has my name scrawled all over it in concrete. My grandfather and I rebuilt that church from the ground up, and the fact that I put my name on it was welcomed by the minister in charge of the church grounds.

A little off-topic but interesting nonetheless.

Wow, pretty harsh for this girl considering I know a few guys who have been caught doing street art before. They definately haven't been sent to jail over it!

This girl should be made to pay a fine and be given a stern warning. I think it is really harsh for a first offence commmitted by someone so young. If this girl reoffends then perhaps a stint in the slammer might be in order to help her wake up to herself.


I do, however, agree with sentencing for habitual graffitists who trespass onto government property like the rail yards and stations; also those who deface people's fences and shop fronts.


take care all
res

reply to post by Kryties


I saw two girls put their boobs in wet concrete on a footpath in North Queensland. I couldn't help but wonder if they ended up getting concrete burn.

reply to post by just_julie


Holy Moly, I just googled the Mitta Mitta church i described above and Wikipedia has an entry for it Not that I think any of you think I'm lying, but here it is for the sake of it....

en.wikipedia.org...

In the concrete my grandfather and I poured all around the base of the church for diverting rainwater, my name appears numerous times in the concrete. Not one person said I had done a bad thing by this.

Now, just to bring this back on topic, I would think marking your name in concrete would be deserving of a harsher sentence than writing your name on a wall in texta. Yet here I sit, free as a bird....

I wonder if I should edit the Wiki article to acknowledge that my grandfather and I rebuilt it from the shell that it originally was...

[edit on 3/2/2009 by Kryties]

Originally posted by tezzajw


Here's an option that the law HAS NOT tried with HER. How about fining her $200, making her clean the graffitti and work a few hours in the cafe washing floors?

Why hasn't the law tried that with HER before it decided to throw HER in jail?

Has this worked in the past with others?
Fines, community service have been used for years, yet the incidence is increasing and so to the costs. This is why we now have tougher legislation.
Our State and courts have moved beyonded catering penalties for individuals who do not care for the laws and the other people they effect. Which is why new laws which allow sentences have been legislated. Ask the court why it handed down the sentence. Because it can. Ask the State why it legislated the law, because it was needed. Ask the councils and citizens who called for tougher laws why they pressured the state into tabling new laws and sentences to deal with these crimes, its because they are fed up with graffiti vandals and the cost they have to incur. All you care about is your percieved injustice. Your poor insight ino the scale and scope of this matter renders your view blinkered. All you see is the sentence and its impact on the individual found guilty of the crime.
Your solution is old, out dated and proven to be ineffectual. The Judge is there for a reason. In this case the Judge, given the individual brought before him, found that a sentence was required. Under legislation, his sentence is mild, given that she may have recieved 6 months and over 2g in fines.
This is the way the law operates, how our respective states legislate. It is not up to the state to taper its laws and its ministrations to the individual, yet the court often does this in most cases. Its only the harsh penalties like these that spark re-actionaries into dissent, purely to serve there own sense of what the law and justice should be in only that one instance while ignoring all the other instances of it acting in the very manner which most reactionaries call for, but don't witness as everyday events within the courts of our criminal system purely because it recieves no media attention or coverage.
She has the appeal process to go through, until she gets through appeal, an appeal at our exspense, the publics, which I am happy to see her recieve. The severity of the courts are also monitored by this process, so if she has been dealt with harshly, her sentence will be reduced if not removed. Take a deep breathe, its not the end of freedom. In out, Terra, in and out. See, they arn't comming for you or your textas.

This is the rationality within the context of a society with a major problem, not an Individual and its problem with the courts sentence.

Originally posted by atlasastro
In out, Terra, in and out. See, they arn't comming for you or your textas.

Mate, I cannot stand it when the opposing opinion attempts to make the other side out to be a bunch of paranoid fruitcakes when it suits them. It detracts from intelligent discussion and quite frankly it makes me think that it is actually the accuser who is paranoid.

His name is 'Tezza' by the way, not 'Terra'.

I see no compassion in your posts, only figures and numbers. That reminds me of pencil-pushing bureaucrats who sit at their desk all day making out-of-touch decisions based on their over-inflated sense of what's right and wrong. I'm talking about the same types of bureaucrats who start a war for oil in a certain country under the pretence of 'WMD's'.

I agree she should have to pay the fine, but I think jail time is a little too excessive for a first time offence and just a drain on the economy for something so minor.

Originally posted by Kryties
au.news.yahoo.com...

Graffiti artist gets good behaviour bond
February 3, 2009, 3:29 pm

A graphic design student caught doing graffiti on a Sydney wall has been wished luck in his art career by a magistrate, so long as his work is exhibited in galleries and not on public property.

Edward Mulvihill, 20, of Thirroul, near Wollongong, escaped with a good behaviour bond on Tuesday, a day after a teenager was jailed for three months for writing graffiti on a Sydney cafe's wall.

Mulvihill appeared before Waverley Local Court, pleading guilty to a charge of malicious damage after vandalising a wooden wall on Oxford Street, Paddington, on December 16.

Magistrate Chris Longley castigated Mulvihill, saying "it was all too prevalent for people in the community to create eyesores for the public at large".

I like to see that. There are some AMAZING graffiti artists out there and a lot are looked down upon just because of the medium they chose.