Thanks, Wizard, for your information regarding the study done in Central
neighborhood, showing that taggers, as opposed to gang banger graffiti,
are usually suburban white youth from 18 to 25 years of age.
Question: According to Senator Berglin's bill,, how old does a tagger
have to be until their parent is no longer responsible for their
graffiti? If most of the tagging is done by adults, white suburban or
otherwise, then why, for heaven's sake, is the DFL-controlled State
Senate going after their parents?
Jon Gorder tells me "you should simply get your facts straight if you
want to be listened to," after asserting, "The vast majority of taggers
and 'artists' are white."
Jon, please read my posting again. Unlike you, I never claimed any
particular racial or ethnic group was responsible for the vast majority
of graffiti. And where do you get your presumably straight facts from?
What I said was "So why stop at graffiti, a crime that many of us,
correctly or incorrectly, associate with marginalized populations (e.g.,
inner-city youth of color)?" Rather than blaming a specific group for
the graffiti, I wanted to call attention to the harm that can be done,
especially to low-income families, if parents are held financially
accountable three times over for graffiti done by their children.
Like it or not, there is a perception in Minneapolis, albeit not shared
by all its citizens, that inner-city black youth are the main culprits
when it comes to graffiti. Many people also assume that the vast
majority of drug abuse occurs among inner-city black youth. But an
article I read two years ago in the Minneapolis StarTribune suggested
drug abuse is more prevalent among white rural youth. Nevertheless,
under our criminal justice system, it is not white youth, but black
youth, who bear the brunt of punishment for drug-related offenses. Does
anyone in this forum really believe it will be any different when we
start penalizing parents of taggers?
While I'm confident that there isn't any racist intent on the part of
Senator Berglin, her bill, if passed into law, may very well reinforce
existing institutional racism in this state. When law breakers are
treated differently according to race and class, as their are in this
country and state, then we ought to think twice before trying to
legislate away more behavior we don't like.
But the proof is in the pudding. If it turns out I'm wrong about this
bill after it's passed (it seems like a sure bet), I'll admit my error
and apologize profusely.
Again, graffiti is a problem in Minneapolis. I hate it as much as the
next person. But there are better ways of addressing it rather than
resorting to Draconian measures that will only single out a population
that many of us, correctly or incorrectly, feel is less responsible.
As for the antii-war graffiti: I've seen quite a bit of it lately in my
neighborhood, too. Perhaps there wouldn't be so much if our neighborhood
war mongers would leave legitimate antiwar lawn signs alone. Mine has
been vandalized twice, and I saw another one in my neighborhood cut in
half, altering its message considerably.-------------------Peter Schmitz
CARAG
Evil is movement toward the void.-------Don De Lillo, <Great Jones
Street>
TEMPORARY REMINDER:
1. Send all posts in plain-text format.
2. Cut as much of the post you're responding to as possible.
________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
