Vandalism and Anti-Social Behaviour

Matt Long, Roger Hopkins Burke

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781349368778, 9780230580855
• eBook ISBN: 9781137519269
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

Vandalism and Anti-Social Behaviour forwards a new typology of vandalism. The authors argue that in order to fully understand vandalism and anti-social behaviour, a culturally criminological perspective should be fostered, which accounts for the emotional and experiential aspects of crime.

Part I

Political Context

1

Towards a Cultural Criminology of Vandalism and Anti-Social Behaviour

All of us will have broken something on many occasions in our lives – it could be in a domestic context like a plate or a vase. It could be in a social context, like a glass. Accidental damage aside, evidence suggests that at some point or other in our lives, many of us will have also wilfully broken something. It is the shift from the former as in the ‘accident’ to the latter in terms of intentionality, which signifies what we term ‘vandalism’ in our culture. We begin this chapter by asking what this term actually means and by tracing where it actually comes from.

The origins and history of the notion of vandalism

It is important to trace the genealogy of the term vandalism, as this kind of ‘archaeological method’ advocated by Michel Foucault (1969) encourages us that an understanding of the past can forge a healthier and more rounded comprehension of the present.

As we observed in the introduction to this text, the work of Stan Cohen (1973) remains highly influential for those seeking to understand our subject matter. Over 40 years ago, he observed that the notion of vandalism derives its meaning from an East German tribe known as the Vandals, who during the fourth and fifth centuries CE invaded Western Europe and destroyed cities. Cohen (1973: 33–34) commented that ‘they were traditionally regarded as the great destroyers of Roman art, civilization and literature and their actions were associated with a general barbaric ignorance’. It was thus Renaissance and Early Modern writers who were keen to censure the vandals, and historian Lisa Jardine (1998) reminds us that the artists of the Renaissance period were patronised by the ruling elites and that any artefact critical of those in power would be unlikely to be bought.

In the year 406, the Vandals moved from their homeland in Pannonia – in present-day Hungary – and travelled along the Danube, but met resistance from the Franks when they reached the Rhine. Having defeated the Franks in a bloody battle, the Vandals invaded Gaul (now France) and in 409, they crossed into the Iberian Peninsula (Spain) via the Pyrenees, later moving into North Africa in 429. The infamous ‘Sack of Rome’ occurred in 455, with Pope Leo the Great begging King Genseric of the Vandals merely to pillage the city rather than to murder, rape and commit arson. The Vandals duly obliged and departed with the spoils of the Temple in Jerusalem booty, which had been brought to Rome at the beginning of the millennium by Titus. Interestingly, regardless of their label as the masters of destruction, it is thought by some that the original Vandals were actually no more destructive than comparable invaders in existence in ancient times (see Cohen, 1973). It was simply what invaders at that time in history did, and this is interesting in terms of an assessment as to how and why the label of the vandal has survived many centuries and endures in postmodern times.

The Romans unsuccessfully retaliated against the Vandals in 460 with attacks from both their Western and Eastern empires, and by 470 they had signed a peace treaty signed with the Vandals in Constantinople. The Vandals were subsequently heavily defeated by the Berbers in two major wars in North Africa between 496 and 530, and the Vandal King Gelimer surrendered to the Romans in 534, effectively bringing an end to the Vandal Empire.

In an interesting shift from a focus on a subculture of people to that of property, Cohen (1973: 34) notes that during the nineteenth century, the term ‘vandalism’ came to refer to the planned destruction of medieval buildings in order to make way for ones which were representative of the new Churchwarden Gothic era, and observes that:

It is not clear when the term ‘vandalism’ became used to describe destruction of property in general. Its etymological connection with the destruction of aesthetic objects is obviously too restrictive to cover the range of behaviour conventionally described as vandalism. Nevertheless, the original connotations of the term should not be lost sight of.

The above connotation has recently resurfaced in our present-day culture with the Prince of Wales reportedly bemoaning the apparent ‘madness’ of seeing heritage buildings abandoned to ‘arsonists and vandals’. Prince Charles is reported to have made these comments to distinguished guests who appeared at the reopening of the English Heritage managed Kenwood house on Hampstead Heath in December 2013 (see Furness, 2013; Wright, 2013).

Whether we are talking about medieval buildings in the nineteenth century or former stately homes in 2013, what is significant is that from the former period onwards the notion of the vandal was no longer used merely to refer to a specific tribe of people, but rather to describe a social practice – namely that of property destruction. This observation is worthy of further reflection because as we have seen, the original Vandals were a force to be reckoned with in terms of colonial expansion. Thus, they murdered, raped, pillaged and looted. These original connotations all seem far removed from the label of the modern-day vandal, for example, the so-called ‘feral child’ of the socially excluded housing estates so beloved by popular media reports. In writing for the Daily Mail, for instance, Harriet Sergeant (2009) wrote how a generation of so-called ‘violent, illiterate’ young men were ‘living outside the boundaries of civilized society’ and could as such be labelled as ‘feral youths’. Nonetheless, this can all be taken too far, for exactly who, outside the esoteric academy, makes any connection between the present day ‘vandal’ and a once to be feared buccaneering, force of colonial expansion?

Therefore, our first point requiring cultural criminological analysis is that the contemporary understanding of the term vandalism differs radically from its original meaning. Having established this, we now turn to an exploration of what is understood by the notion of vandalism in contemporary society.

What is vandalism in contemporary society?

A good starting point is to take a look at black-letter law. A glance at the statute book tells us that there is no such offence as vandalism, which is a term used more as a label or a censure (Sumner, 1994) and possibly a catch-all term for something else. The correct legal term is of course ‘criminal damage’, and this unambiguously refers to ‘crime’:

Criminal damage refers to crimes where any person without lawful excuse intentionally or recklessly destroys or damages any property belonging to another. Activities resulting in non-permanent damage (i.e. that can be rectified, cleaned off or removed at no cost) such as letting down of car tyres should not be classed as criminal damage, nor should accidental damage.

(Home Office, 2006a)

In a strict legalistic sense, according to case law if no damage in fact occurs, then no liability for criminal damage can arise (see for example A [a Juvenile] v R [1978] Crim LR 689). Black letter law can, however, only take us so far in that there is ambiguity with judgment, and police officer discretion is required in order to decide what actually constitutes ‘permanent’ or ‘non-permanent’ damage. Whilst letting down car tyres might constitute non-permanent damage, it may actually represent more of an inconvenience for the car owner than having their wing mirrors broken. The former temporarily incapacitates the car owner and might mean a missed hospital appointment or a later appearance at work, whereas the latter does not mean the car cannot be driven. In practice, therefore, ‘damage’ may not be strictly defined by the legislation, and is thus not limited to permanent damage. One such example may be the smearing of mud on the walls of a police cell by a suspect, which may be classified as criminal damage even though technically it can be removed. In practice, therefore, what constitutes damage is a matter both of fact and degree, and it is for the court, using its common sense, to decide whether what occurred is damage (Crown Prosecution Service, 2011).

There is nevertheless legal recognition that some forms of criminal damage are significantly more serious than others, and this begins to give us a clue as to the fact that vandalism is diverse. Criminal damage may not just desecrate property, but can in certain cases endanger human life. To this end, the Criminal Damage Act 1971 prescribes a maximum sentence of life for arson or criminal damage that endangers life and for any threat/possession with intent to commit criminal damage involving explosives. Indeed, few would dispute that these are serious offences worthy of significant sanction. This is, however, once again an ambiguous area, particularly when what we will define as ‘political’ acts of vandalism are considered. The waters are muddied in the sense that, as we shall see later, members of organisations such as Greenpeace, for instance, may claim that their protests, although dangerous, are morally justifiable as they are carried out for the purpose of the wider social good, environmental concerns and sometimes to prevent what are perceived to be potentially greater long-term harms to humanity.

There are much tougher sentences for racially and/or religiously aggravated offences of criminal damage, but whether an offence is judged to be religiously or racially motivated depends on (a) the perception of the victim and (b) the awareness of the police officer(s) investigating in terms of their appreciation of current legislation and good practice. An offender may receive a maximum prison sentence of 14 years when the offence of criminal damage is racially motivated or religiously aggravated, and there is a 10-year maximum sentence for all other forms (see Crown Prosecution Service, 2011). As we shall see later in the book, some forms of vandalism are regressive and aimed at undermining attempts at diversity, inclusion and multiculturalism, and considered deserving of the full weight of the criminal law. These are what are collectively known as Hate Crimes, and what we term ‘hate vandalism’ is a subcomponent of this.

The ‘seriousness’ of vandalism is invariably related to the cost of the damage rather than taking into account motivations of the offender, which is a fundamental underpinning of criminal law, taking us back to the utilitarian philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill (Hopkins Burke, 2013). It is not so much the intention of the perpetrator that is important but the damage they cause to the victim or society. Thus, if the cost of damage in value terms exceeds £5,000, the maximum penalty is six months in prison and a £5,000 fine. If the value is less than £5,000 the maximum sentence is three months in prison or a £2,500 fine (see Crown Prosecution Service, 2011). The Criminal Damage Act of 1971 has in some respects been complemented by more recent legislation such as The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, which introduced £50 Fixed Penalty Notices for offences relating to minor graffiti and flyposting, with clearly some ambiguity existing here as to what constitutes ‘minor’ in such cases and the impact of the damage on the wider community.

The above being taken into account, a cultural criminological perspective on vandalism, however, rejects a narrow legalistic conception of how the criminal justice system deals with acts of ‘criminal damage’. Whilst the criminal justice system does arbitrate on the level of seriousness of the offence of property damage which has been committed, a dry black-letter legalistic approach says very little about the sheer diversity of social practices which can be subsumed under the label of vandalism. Vandalism, as we shall see, covers a diverse range of social practices.

The diversity of vandalism

There is considerable diversity in the acts that are included in the black-letter legalistic category of criminal damage including arson. This is important for us to acknowledge because ‘fire starting’, for example, is materially different from, say, tagging a bus shelter. The definition of arson favoured by the British Crime Survey is ‘deliberate property damage caused by fire to a person’s home or vehicle’ (Nicholas et al., 2007). This again warrants criminological attention in that we might ask ourselves whether the sort of person who knocks a wing mirror off a car as a drunken prank is the same as one who would deliberately sets fire to a school to cause millions of pounds worth of damage. Some might think not and consider these to be completely mutually exclusive acts at the polar ends of a seriousness spectrum, but others might note a linkage with a ‘one thing leading to another’ syndrome located in the context of a spiral of decline or increased activity (see Knights, 1998).

Unlike some forms of damage, arson is a serious criminal offence as it has been estimated that more than half of all fires which cause property damage are started deliberately, with the wider costs to the economy amounting to £2.2 billion a year. Despite the creation of an Arson Control Forum, with an annual budget of £4million, a typical week sees arsonists start 21,000 fires. As well as damage to property, these vandalistic acts can lead to the far more serious eventuality of injuries (estimated at 55 per week), with an average of one death per week (Daily Mail Online, 2013). As with simple property destruction, we again find that arson, far from being random and sporadic, is remarkably patterned, and it is this patterning which provides us with one of the golden threads of this book. It is estimated that approximately 50 per cent of arson is targeted at cars (usually stolen), with other targets including garages, sheds and schools. Over one in five fires in homes are started deliberately, and on an average day, 17 schools will be targeted. The Association of British Insurance estimates arson costs over £1million per day, with ‘direct losses’ being related to property damage, emotional suffering due to injury/loss of life, health service costs, fire service response, environmental costs and lost production. Additionally there are ‘indirect costs’ related to fire protection, for example, smoke alarms and prevention activity by the Fire Service (Home Office, 2013).

The peak period for fire starting is between 7 p.m. and midnight, which, at first sight, might suggest a rational actor model motivation with people choosing to commit these acts under the cover of darkness, while a predestined actor model suggestion might be that offenders are more likely to be drunk during the more conventional 7 p.m. until 11 p.m. pub drinking hours. As a cultural criminologist, the late Mike Presdee (2007), reminds us that fires have more of a visual effect at night and that there is something seductive about the partaking of acts of transgression under the blanket of the hours of darkness, demonstrating the compatibility, rather than exclusivity of these theoretical approaches. Detection rates for arson are low, 8 per cent compared to 24 per cent for all other criminal damage offences, probably because fingerprint and even DNA evidence can be easily destroyed in the flames, which also suggests torching a crime scene to be a very rational criminal action (see Association of British Insurers, 2009).

In further considering the diversity of acts of vandalism, it should be noted that the category ‘criminal damage’ also includes the very ambiguous notion of ‘graffiti’. Thus, what some consider an artistic and creative process offering a social commentary through both image and word is not allowed for in a criminal code, which does not recognise such a diverse form of expression. At its simplest form graffiti involves images, lettering, scratchings, scrawlings, paintings and/or markings on property. It derives from the Italian word graffiato, or ‘scratched’, and its origins can be traced to Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire, for example, with figure drawings on walls, ancient sepulchres/ruins. There is evidence of Viking graffiti in Rome and Ireland, as well as Chinese graffiti on the Great Wall of China. Cohen (1973: 29) observes that ‘graffiti are hailed as legitimate and amusing forms of self-expression’, but we might be less charitable if the graffiti is ugly, offensive and on our own property. Black-letter law aside, and again from a cultural criminological perspective, we might ask ourselves whether the ‘tagging’ of a bus shelter or a grave is the same thing as a work of art produced by the revered (in some quarters) graffiti artist Banksy? Indeed, we might well ponder – as some clearly do – whether Banksy has the (human or civil) right to paint his murals on your property without your consent in the name of art and, furthermore, are you some awful philistine because you object? According to Jeff Ferrell (1996: 5), the importance of disaggregating different forms of graffiti which are unhelpfully subsumed under the label of vandalism is paramount:

(T)hose who shape public perceptions of urban graffiti-local and national media, anti-graffiti campaigners, and others – intentionally and unintentionally muddy the boundaries between types of graffiti and graffiti writing, confusing one with the other in their condemnations of all graffiti as vandalism and crime.

In his study of hip-hop graffiti in Denver, Ferrell observes how Life on Capitol Hill repeatedly referred to graffiti artists by means of the derogatory censure ‘graffitiodiots’. Paige (1989), a well- known talk show host in the United States, has referred to graffito artists as ‘gauche graffiti goons’ and ‘spray-can cretins’ (cited in Ferrell, 1996: 137), and in so doing graffiti is censured and denied status as an activity of artistic pursuit. Ferrell (1996: 138) noted how in July 1988, the Rocky Mountain News equated graffiti with other different sprees of vandalism (see also Pugh, 1988), and according to the author (1996: 138), ‘the effect, of course is to lock graffiti into the context of vandalism, to tie it to activities like window smashing and cemetery desecration’. So we have in effect the lumping together of people who smash up bus shelters, start fires by pouring petrol through letterboxes and those who use a spray can to perform a work of art. The criminal law apparently allows little room for acknowledging the diversity and motivations which lie behind these totally different social practices, although we might add that these apparently disparate acts do have something significant in common. All are criminal damage, and they are so because, for the simple reason, they are damaging someone’s property without their permission, regardless of how aesthetically pleasing the outcome might be to some observers. As cultural criminologists, however, we have to be more ambitious in our attempts to understand the sheer diversity of social practices alluded to above, and our starting point is an attempt to understand vandalism through popular cultural depictions. By exploring these popular cultural depictions we can begin to see how certain st...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Introduction
• Part I  Political Context
• Part II  Cultural Targets and Vandalistic Contexts
• Part III  Cultural Criminology and Vandalism
• Part IV  Cultural Criminology, the Anti-Social State and the Pro-Social Vandal
• Part V  Vandalistic Futures
• Conclusions
• References
• Index