Graffiti Is Not A Victimless Crime

Down in Nueces County (Corpus Christi, Texas), an 18 year-old graffiti artist has been sentenced to eight years in prison. The young man pled guilty to three separate instances of graffiti and possession of marijuana. He said the graffiti had become a "habit", but promised to stop it and return to school and help cleanup the graffiti if the judge would give him probation.

The judge was not impressed by the teen's plea, and I don't blame him. Although he pled guilty to three instances of graffiti, the police say he is responsible for at least two dozen graffiti crimes that total about $7,300 in damages. He had "tagged" a medical clinic, homes, fences and even traffic signs. The judge gave him a total of eight years for the four crimes for which he pled guilty.

Although I am a liberal, I think the young man earned every minute of the sentence he was given (and I think many of my fellow liberals would see it that way). However, another Texas liberal disagrees with me. Scott Henson of Grits for Breakfast believes the sentence was far too harsh. Henson has written about graffiti before, and he seems to think this is a minor crime that does not deserve jail time.

I think he's wrong. This 18 year-old caused $7,300 in physical damages to the property of other people. If he had stolen that much money from his victims (and they are victims), he would have received an even harsher sentence. But in effect, he did cost his victims that much money. That money will have to come out of their pockets to repair the damage, and that's that much money they won't have to spend on other things (and in a recession, no less).

Henson also points out that it will cost $25,000 a year to incarcerate the graffiti offender. I will accept his figure, since I don't personally know how much it costs the state and I figure he's done his research. But I don't see what that has to do with the price of beans in China. We wouldn't worry about the cost of his incarceration if he committed theft, burglary or robbery costing his victims $7,300, and we shouldn't worry about it in this case. Cost of incarceration should never be an issue in sentencing of any offender.

Then Henson comes up with his most ridiculous reason of all for not incarcerating this criminal -- the fact that it will cost another $150,000 to $200,000 in restitution he could have paid, money he could have earned and taxes he could have paid. Give me a break!

We have absolutely no reason to believe this drop-out would have returned to school, earned a single penny (legally), paid any taxes or completed his probation and become a law-abiding citizen. In fact, the odds are against it. According to the prosecutor, he did not successfully complete his pre-trial supervision. Why should we believe he would be successful in post-trial probation?

The fact is that this young man (and at 18 he is considered an adult) is a criminal who cost his victims thousands of dollars. He admits doing the crimes. Now he needs to do the time (and the time he was given is not abusive or out-of-line).