I do not understand what makes people destroy things that actually are useful to them! Just today I went down to a local convenience store-the owner(in an attempt to make his premise more attractive) planted some nice maple trees outside-and guess what? Some local punks stripped tha bark off them-which means the trees will shortly be all dead-what a waste. Another example-I live in a largely blue-collar town, and yet, the city tries to provide some summertime activities for the local juvenile delinquents-the city has a pool, open to all. One day I went to swim, and entering the locker room, I was aghast-these wonderful children had torn several showerheads OFF the wall! In addition, they had wrenched the doors off several lockers, rendering them useless. Now, I for one am gratefull to have a nice swimming pool to cool off in-but what makes these children destroy something that is of use to them?
My theory-these kids are incipient psychopaths-they do not want anybody to enjoy what they do not-so they simply destroy it! What possible satisfaction can any normal person take in destroying things…and why is vandalism so present among the poor-if anything, I would think that a poor person would respect things given to him!
What’s your take on vandalism?
It is the severest ethical offense.
too many ways to answer,
too many questions
be careful generalizing about the poor
why do people break things?
because they can
they do it as an attempt to prove that they exist and can make an impact
ever go to the lake and throw a rock in just to watch the splash?
same sort of thing
that’s one theory on why kids break stuff
graffitti,
it’s cave paintings
it’s a testament to “i exist”
“I paint therefore i am”
“i can write ‘fuck you’ on a wall therefore i am a person of impact”
killing trees?
ask any kid why,
you’ll invariably get the same answer
(shrug) “idunno”
as they get older they learn to tell the truth about it
(shrug) “idunno, we were just screwing around”
my take on vandalism is that it sucks
and that kids need to be supervised.
The reasons are legion.
Boredom: They’re out wandering around at night, with nothing to do. They’ve seen the movies, they don’t want to go home, they can’t find a party and can’t afford to go to a club.
Natural inclination to destruction: It’s largely a “guy” thing- the same “hey that’s cool” they get from watching Wildest Police Chase Wrecks or playing a video game where they’re rewarded for blowing up the scenery.
Maliciousness: “Won’t the next guy in here be pissed off when he comes in and can’t take a shower?”
Apathy: “Aw, the city’ll just send some guy out to replace it. No big deal”
Redirected anger: Bad home life, mad from a breakup with a girlfriend, pissed his buddies didn’t come pick him up to go to the party.
Misdirected vengeance: The police that ticketed him for underage drinking work for the same city that owns the pool.
Sheer stupidity and a total lack of the ability to think of anything better to do: Well, duh.
I still feel bad about the time I carved my initials in a picnic table.
That was - what - 3 decades ago?
Tho I lived comfortably in a middle class family, I never had tons much spending money. As a result, I was always very aware of how much things cost. Which translated into an unwillingness to damage things, thereby imposing costs on others - or depriving them from full enjoyment of those things.
I think vandalism is strongly related to poverty and lack of education. You do not see graffitti on fences in wealthy neighborhoods. Again, I can undderstand somebody destroying something that belongs to somebody else-but why destroy something that benefits YOU? I really think that the city cannot afford to fix the damage to the pool-it probably will not open next year-I guess we have those idiots to thank. I really think an appropriate sentence for any of the se kids caught vandalizing property is for their homes to be vandalized…it might make them think just a bit.
Ralph124c wrote:
Please clarify what you mean by that. Frankly, it sounds downright spooky.
Thanks to greck, I now feel bad about throwing rocks in lakes. 
I don’t think the poor hold a monopoly on vandelism. If I had 50$ for every Cornish game hen we launched through the window of a rival fraternity…well you get the idea.
I think that vandelism is an expression of anger. A form of lashing out. For blue collar poor people it may be anger at what they perceive to be spoiled arrogant rich kids (if I also had $50 for every bottle of Pabst Blue Ribbon some townie threw through one of our windows…) or “the man” who they feel keeps them down. For people with money, its a way to piss off authority figures who they despise at the same time they are basically studing to replace them. Plus rich people generally don’t really have to worry about the financial consequences as much.
I would say that the appropriate punishment is to make those kids work off the damage they caused.
I still regret writing “shit” on the Catholic school down the street with a pencil when I was 11.
Recently, some vandals-because they were BORED, caused thousands of dollars worth of damage to a local elementary school-an aquarium destroyed, windows smashed, computers, you name it. I think they had to close school for a few days, that’s how bad it was.
All the more reason to bring back public whippings.
And eliminate so-called “public property”.
Libertarian: forgive my denseness, but I’m genuinely curious: how would eliminating public property remove vandalism?
I don’t think it would “remove” vandalism. But when the law is that rights inhere to property, property becomes an extension of the person himself, whose original property is his body and mind. Vandalism then becomes assault and destruction murder.
When property is seen as a trivial thing, we get comments like the spooky one above: “I can undderstand somebody destroying something that belongs to somebody else…”.
Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification.
Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification.
Um…yeah. Relax dude, it’s just “stuff”. It doesn’t nor should it be given the same rights and considerations as a person. Stuff can always be replaced.
No, it can’t always. How, for example, would you replace the only photograph in existence of your sainted mother? Besides, it isn’t the stuff that has rights, but the owner of the stuff.
With your cavalier view, why should someone not pull out your hair by its roots? It will grow back.
It makes a significant visual change to the surrounding environment, and requires far less effort than creating public art. It’s a way for powerless persons to make an impact to demonstrate thay have some influence on others. Also, as Nick Lowe once sang, some people “love the sound of breaking glass”.
Sure, but I feel vandalism of public facilities should still be treated as a serious crime. The repeated replacement of even small items can run into serious money that could be better spent elsewhere.
I worked in an office park just outside Paris for several years. There was a bus shelter at the end of the street. The shelter had four frosted glass panes enclosing it on two sides. About every two weeks, I’d get off the bus in the morning to find one or more of the glass panes shattered by a large rock or piece of concrete. Every two weeks, fer cryin’ out loud. Over the course of five years, I bet RATP, the local transit authority, spent several thousand dollars putting glass in just that that one damn shelter, and there were several more in the area that got pretty much the same treatment.
BTW, I’ve gotta wonder why they didn’t go to Lexan, or just stop replacing the glass altogether.
-
I back out of my garage and accidentally run over my kid’s bike, destroying it.
-
I back out of my garage and accidentally run over my kid, killing him.
Any ideological system that equates these two acts is wacked, IMHO.
Sounds kind of like PETA:
“A bicycle is a rat is a dog is pig is a boy.”