The recent vandalism on the pillar at the entrance to Swasey Park followed vandalism at a cemetery in Exeter. Both were committed by youths. In the case of the former, the mother gave a conflicted accounting of her daughter's activity. On the one hand she commented that her daughter was only expressing herself in art, while on the other hand she admitted, after learning the crab apple "artwork" did not rinse off in the rain, her daughter should not have done what she did.
Vandalism, the defacing of property, shows a lack of respect for what belongs to the public. Clearly the mother has sent a mixed message to her daughter. To assume vandalism is acceptable if it can be washed away misses the point entirely. Defacing public property or the property of others is a criminal activity. It is unclear what the daughter's special needs are, but it does seem appropriate for her to perform some community service as amends for her act of vandalism.
On a final note, it is disturbing to read that individuals stood around as the young girl defaced the pillar. Did it not bother them that public property was being vandalized?
To be fair, the mother had offered her daughter to perform community service but the town declined. The town has also stated that if additional services are required beyond elbow grease to clean it up, that the mother would be billed. I could think of some agencies whose buildings would be deserving of defacement, though probably not this pillar.
ReplyDeleteThe commentor is correct about the mother's offer. However, why did the mother think it was ok for the daughter to deface public property in the first place, regardless of whether they thought it would wash off? What kind of message did that send? And what about the people watching the daughter deface the pillar?
ReplyDeleteWhy should doing this on public property be a crime? After all, we are all equal owners so we should all be able to do what we please. Publius, you miss the mark: the conflict lies in the fact that public property has no owners, and this is the reason why conflicts arise. If the property were privately owned, it would clearly be a form of trespass.
ReplyDelete