[url=http://beobuild.rs/forum/viewtopic.php?p=465460#p465460:w7cil2lw je napisao(la):
GosnMaster » Pet Jul 14, 2017 3:37 pm[/url]":w7cil2lw]
[url=http://beobuild.rs/forum/viewtopic.php?p=465459#p465459:w7cil2lw je napisao(la):
varos kapija » Pet Jul 14, 2017 2:33 pm[/url]":w7cil2lw]Kao sto se moglo ocekivati, kratko je trajalo.
Sta je ovim ljudima u glavama ne mogu da razumem...
The motivations for graffiti practice are complex. Common assumptions suggest that involvement is related to issues such as boredom, a desire to cause damage and a lack of respect for other people's property (Halsey & Young 2006). These assumptions frequently underpin graffiti-management strategies. A review of media reports, policy documents, academic writing and public opinion suggests there is a widespread view that graffiti is attributable to young male teens, the result of unemployment and boredom, is inherently antisocial, associated with low socioeconomic areas and associated with other criminal activity (Halsey & Young 2002a). Given the lack of a body of research on which to base these assumptions, the persistence of graffiti as a crime problem is in part a reflection of limited attempts to understand the various thoughts, motivations and feelings experienced by graffiti writers (Halsey & Young 2006).
Implications for policy and practice
The lack of criminological research exploring the characteristics of graffiti offences and offenders and their motivations poses certain challenges to those attempting to develop effective crime prevention strategies. A range of different strategies have been developed and implemented to address graffiti problems including rapid removal, target hardening (eg graffiti-proof paint), the use of security cameras, education campaigns, increasing penalties for offenders and urban art projects. However, graffiti remains a significant problem. Despite the popularity of many of the approaches listed, there has been limited research and evaluation to examine the effectiveness of these strategies in reducing graffiti. Further research into both the nature and prevention of graffiti is therefore required.
Nevertheless, it is possible to identify several useful ideas for policymakers and practitioners attempting to develop and implement graffiti prevention initiatives from the research findings outlined in this summary paper. Strategies to reduce graffiti should:
recognise that there are different types of graffiti and graffiti writers, and be based upon an understanding of the nature of graffiti and who is involved, including the range of complex motivations for participating in the production of graffiti
be based upon information relating to the precise nature of the problem in the local context, including the types of graffiti being produced in the local area, the extent or incidence of graffiti, methods of graffiti writing, locations targeted by graffiti writers and when it occurs
target those locations that have been identified using local intelligence as at risk of being targeted by graffiti writers and implement strategies that reduce opportunities for graffiti to occur
be developed through meaningful consultation with young people and graffiti writers as well as the broader community to ensure that the range of diverse interests and values are reflected in the approaches taken
establish mechanisms to identify and work with graffiti writers (before and after they come into contact with the criminal justice system) to address their reasons for engaging in graffiti production to prevent future reoffending
incorporate multiple interventions that draw upon both social and environmental approaches to crime prevention
aim to find an appropriate balance between prevention and more punitive responses
establish mechanisms to encourage and facilitate better reporting of graffiti when it occurs and to increase the amount and quality of information provided to authorities in order to:
assist in the detection and apprehension of graffiti writers
ensure that information on the nature and extent of the problem, and reliable data to measure the impact of graffiti prevention strategies, is available (Halsey & Young 2006; Sutton, Cherney & White 2008).
