>If you really want to stop gang violence, people in poverty need opportunity and investment.
The theory you are presenting, of monocausal criminality due to economic conditions, has been analyzed thoroughly and rejected decisively by the field of criminology for decades, now. It's easy to see why: we can compare impoverished groups both nationally and globally and discover that there is simply no causal, consistent relationship between poverty and violent criminality.
To be sure, economics can play a role and become a factor in motivating criminal behavior, but violent criminality is ultimately a choice that people make, not a direct consequence of poverty. Indeed, many groups suffering tremendous poverty exhibit very low rates of violent crime, and likewise, Suge Knight exists.
>I understand the nature of gang tags but I also understand that gang tags are the minority of graffiti art
Because in some rail yard somewhere lurks some really decked out train cars, you want to prevent a neighborhood plagued with gang violence from protecting their community?
>Painted symbols can easily outlast the people who painted them
We aren't talking about that sort of painted symbol, though. I'm totally mystified as to why you refuse to acknowledge the nature of gang tags. They aren't art, and aren't intended to be art. Instead, they're enciphered threats to other criminals in the area, warning them to stay out. They don't and aren't intended to outlast the people who painted them.
And most importantly, they represent real danger to the entire community. Turf wars, mistaken identity shootings, as well as gang activities like narcotics, sex trafficking, and robbery/burglary are all to be expected in areas where gangs openly declare ownership of turf with tags.
>Seems a provision like that would make each dollar less effective.
The same thing could be said of sanctions on Russian oil. Sometimes it has to be about more than pure economics, even as we try to craft rational economic policy.
I can't speak to the author's views, but it would to me. There's something very disconcerting about the ability of digital media to be "memory holed", and the Streisand effect is no longer a sure thing, in the age of big tech censorship infrastructure built by popular (media) demand.
How much do you know about street gangs? Yeah, they're dangerous! Turf markings are extremely dangerous. They aren't put there to be art, it's like calling a "caution: floor is wet" sign "art".
I'm trying not to be offensive or personal here, but I'm stunned at this take that refuses to acknowledge how dangerous and harmful street gangs are to communities. If you've ever had to live in a neighborhood with them, like I have, then I doubt this would be as much of an issue for you?
And what I described is the outline of a study, not an anecdote. Small scale, limited sample size, and less well controlled than an academic study, but it's still data.
Also, as another poster already mentioned, it isn't as if there is any shortage of large scale, academic studies available showing exactly the same results, if those are more your cup of tea.
Yes, some people use spraypaint to make stunning, socially relevant art. Banksy is, in some sense, a graffiti artist.
But most graffiti has nothing to do with Banksy-esque social commentary. In fact, much of it is simply gang signs labeling areas of turf control. The people writing these gang sign messages are absolutely not interested in having a specific, authorized place in which to exhibit their street artwork.
It isn't classist bullshit at all, it's human psychology observable and testable even on small scales. Try this experiment!
Detail clean your car meticulously, and on separate occasions, ask friends to come with you to get some fast food. Notice how much trash they leave behind in the car when they're done - probably none.
Now, deliberately make your car interior messy and dirty. Run the same test again with different friends, and observe that more trash has been left behind.
Humans naturally conform to the expectations of society, which they interpret based partially on environmental cues of their surroundings. When those environmental cues advertise social expectations of lawlessness, uncaring, and valuelessness, behavior alters to match expectations.
The theory you are presenting, of monocausal criminality due to economic conditions, has been analyzed thoroughly and rejected decisively by the field of criminology for decades, now. It's easy to see why: we can compare impoverished groups both nationally and globally and discover that there is simply no causal, consistent relationship between poverty and violent criminality.
To be sure, economics can play a role and become a factor in motivating criminal behavior, but violent criminality is ultimately a choice that people make, not a direct consequence of poverty. Indeed, many groups suffering tremendous poverty exhibit very low rates of violent crime, and likewise, Suge Knight exists.