Dr Kelling’s theory takes its name from the observation that a few
broken windows in an empty building quickly lead to more smashed
panes, more vandalism and eventually to break-ins. The tendency for
people to behave in a particular way can be strengthened or weakened
depending on what they observe others to be doing. This does not
necessarily mean that people will copy bad behaviour exactly, reaching
for a spray can when they see graffiti. Rather, says Dr Keizer, it can
foster the “violation” of other norms of behaviour. It was this effect
that his experiments, which have just been published in Science, set
out to test.
His group’s first study was conducted in an alley that is frequently
used to park bicycles. As in all of their experiments, the researchers
created two conditions: one of order and the other of disorder. In the
former, the walls of the alley were freshly painted; in the latter,
they were tagged with graffiti (but not elaborately, to avoid the
perception that it might be art). In both states a large sign
prohibiting graffiti was put up, so that it would not be missed by
anyone who came to collect a bicycle. All the bikes then had a flyer
promoting a non-existent sports shop attached to their handlebars.
This needed to be removed before a bicycle could be ridden.
When owners returned, their behaviour was secretly observed. There
were no rubbish bins in the alley, so a cyclist had three choices. He
could take the flyer with him, hang it on another bicycle (which the
researchers counted as littering) or throw it to the floor. When the
alley contained graffiti, 69% of the riders littered compared with 33%
when the walls were clean.
To remove one possible bias—that litter encourages more litter—the
researchers inconspicuously picked up each castaway flyer. Nor, they
say, could the effect be explained by litterers assuming that because
the spraying of graffiti had not been prevented, it was also unlikely
that they would be caught. Littering, Dr Keizer observes, is generally
tolerated by the police in Groningen.
The other experiments were carried out in a similar way. In one, a
temporary fence was used to close off a short cut to a car park,
except for a narrow gap. Two signs were erected, one telling people
there was no throughway and the other saying that bicycles must not be
left locked to the fence. In the “order” condition (with four bicycles
parked nearby, but not locked to the fence) 27% of people were
prepared to trespass by stepping through the gap, whereas in the
disorder condition (with the four bikes locked to the fence, in
violation of the sign) 82% took the short cut.
Nor were the effects limited to visual observation of petty criminal
behaviour. It is against the law to let off fireworks in the
Netherlands for several weeks before New Year’s Eve. So two weeks
before the festival the researchers randomly let off firecrackers near
a bicycle shed at a main railway station and watched what happened
using their flyer technique. With no fireworks, 48% of people took the
flyers with them when they collected their bikes. With fireworks, this
fell to 20%.
The most dramatic result, though, was the one that showed a doubling
in the number of people who were prepared to steal in a condition of
disorder. In this case an envelope with a €5 ($6) note inside (and the
note clearly visible through the address window) was left sticking out
of a post box. In a condition of order, 13% of those passing took the
envelope (instead of leaving it or pushing it into the box). But if
the post box was covered in graffiti, 27% did. Even if the post box
had no graffiti on it, but the area around it was littered with paper,
orange peel, cigarette butts and empty cans, 25% still took the
envelope.
The researchers’ conclusion is that one example of disorder, like
graffiti or littering, can indeed encourage another, like stealing. Dr
Kelling was right. The message for policymakers and police officers is
that clearing up graffiti or littering promptly could help fight the
spread of crime.
There is actually even more substantial empirical evidence for this,
in the form of the experience of New York City during its recovery
from financial collapse during the 1980s. When police began
patrolling on foot, as opposed to riding around in cars, and paid
attention to petty crime such as broken windows and graffiti, they
found that more serious forms of crime also declined. That's why New
York is now one of the safest cities in the U.S.
Unfortunately, there is another form of broken windows that seems to
be more serious. It's called Vista.
On Nov 22, 1:26 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Dr Kelling’s theory takes its name from the observation that a few
> broken windows in an empty building quickly lead to more smashed
> panes, more vandalism and eventually to break-ins. The tendency for
> people to behave in a particular way can be strengthened or weakened
> depending on what they observe others to be doing. This does not
> necessarily mean that people will copy bad behaviour exactly, reaching
> for a spray can when they see graffiti. Rather, says Dr Keizer, it can
> foster the “violation” of other norms of behaviour. It was this effect
> that his experiments, which have just been published in Science, set
> out to test.
> His group’s first study was conducted in an alley that is frequently
> used to park bicycles. As in all of their experiments, the researchers
> created two conditions: one of order and the other of disorder. In the
> former, the walls of the alley were freshly painted; in the latter,
> they were tagged with graffiti (but not elaborately, to avoid the
> perception that it might be art). In both states a large sign
> prohibiting graffiti was put up, so that it would not be missed by
> anyone who came to collect a bicycle. All the bikes then had a flyer
> promoting a non-existent sports shop attached to their handlebars.
> This needed to be removed before a bicycle could be ridden.
> When owners returned, their behaviour was secretly observed. There
> were no rubbish bins in the alley, so a cyclist had three choices. He
> could take the flyer with him, hang it on another bicycle (which the
> researchers counted as littering) or throw it to the floor. When the
> alley contained graffiti, 69% of the riders littered compared with 33%
> when the walls were clean.
> To remove one possible bias—that litter encourages more litter—the
> researchers inconspicuously picked up each castaway flyer. Nor, they
> say, could the effect be explained by litterers assuming that because
> the spraying of graffiti had not been prevented, it was also unlikely
> that they would be caught. Littering, Dr Keizer observes, is generally
> tolerated by the police in Groningen.
> The other experiments were carried out in a similar way. In one, a
> temporary fence was used to close off a short cut to a car park,
> except for a narrow gap. Two signs were erected, one telling people
> there was no throughway and the other saying that bicycles must not be
> left locked to the fence. In the “order” condition (with four bicycles
> parked nearby, but not locked to the fence) 27% of people were
> prepared to trespass by stepping through the gap, whereas in the
> disorder condition (with the four bikes locked to the fence, in
> violation of the sign) 82% took the short cut.
> Nor were the effects limited to visual observation of petty criminal
> behaviour. It is against the law to let off fireworks in the
> Netherlands for several weeks before New Year’s Eve. So two weeks
> before the festival the researchers randomly let off firecrackers near
> a bicycle shed at a main railway station and watched what happened
> using their flyer technique. With no fireworks, 48% of people took the
> flyers with them when they collected their bikes. With fireworks, this
> fell to 20%.
> The most dramatic result, though, was the one that showed a doubling
> in the number of people who were prepared to steal in a condition of
> disorder. In this case an envelope with a €5 ($6) note inside (and the
> note clearly visible through the address window) was left sticking out
> of a post box. In a condition of order, 13% of those passing took the
> envelope (instead of leaving it or pushing it into the box). But if
> the post box was covered in graffiti, 27% did. Even if the post box
> had no graffiti on it, but the area around it was littered with paper,
> orange peel, cigarette butts and empty cans, 25% still took the
> envelope.
> The researchers’ conclusion is that one example of disorder, like
> graffiti or littering, can indeed encourage another, like stealing. Dr
> Kelling was right. The message for policymakers and police officers is
> that clearing up graffiti or littering promptly could help fight the
> spread of crime.
I would tend to agree with the entire conclusion. Areas where graffiti
and litter are rampant are also victimized by criminal activity. When
an area is disheveled it serves to encourage bad behavior as each
individual would not feel responsible as the initiator but only as
just another person participating in something that already existed.
If ten windows are already broken in a vacant building then what would
it matter if two more are broken. People throw trash out of the car
window in a neighbor where trash is all over the street but would not
do the same in a very clean neighborhood. The immediate cleansing of
graffiti tends to reduce the recurrence of the activity. It would
seem those responsible for the impish behavior are both too lazy to
continue re tagging and afraid of capture during their return to the
scene.
On Nov 22, 12:26 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Dr Kelling’s theory takes its name from the observation that a few
> broken windows in an empty building quickly lead to more smashed
> panes, more vandalism and eventually to break-ins. The tendency for
> people to behave in a particular way can be strengthened or weakened
> depending on what they observe others to be doing. This does not
> necessarily mean that people will copy bad behaviour exactly, reaching
> for a spray can when they see graffiti. Rather, says Dr Keizer, it can
> foster the “violation” of other norms of behaviour. It was this effect
> that his experiments, which have just been published in Science, set
> out to test.
> His group’s first study was conducted in an alley that is frequently
> used to park bicycles. As in all of their experiments, the researchers
> created two conditions: one of order and the other of disorder. In the
> former, the walls of the alley were freshly painted; in the latter,
> they were tagged with graffiti (but not elaborately, to avoid the
> perception that it might be art). In both states a large sign
> prohibiting graffiti was put up, so that it would not be missed by
> anyone who came to collect a bicycle. All the bikes then had a flyer
> promoting a non-existent sports shop attached to their handlebars.
> This needed to be removed before a bicycle could be ridden.
> When owners returned, their behaviour was secretly observed. There
> were no rubbish bins in the alley, so a cyclist had three choices. He
> could take the flyer with him, hang it on another bicycle (which the
> researchers counted as littering) or throw it to the floor. When the
> alley contained graffiti, 69% of the riders littered compared with 33%
> when the walls were clean.
> To remove one possible bias—that litter encourages more litter—the
> researchers inconspicuously picked up each castaway flyer. Nor, they
> say, could the effect be explained by litterers assuming that because
> the spraying of graffiti had not been prevented, it was also unlikely
> that they would be caught. Littering, Dr Keizer observes, is generally
> tolerated by the police in Groningen.
> The other experiments were carried out in a similar way. In one, a
> temporary fence was used to close off a short cut to a car park,
> except for a narrow gap. Two signs were erected, one telling people
> there was no throughway and the other saying that bicycles must not be
> left locked to the fence. In the “order” condition (with four bicycles
> parked nearby, but not locked to the fence) 27% of people were
> prepared to trespass by stepping through the gap, whereas in the
> disorder condition (with the four bikes locked to the fence, in
> violation of the sign) 82% took the short cut.
> Nor were the effects limited to visual observation of petty criminal
> behaviour. It is against the law to let off fireworks in the
> Netherlands for several weeks before New Year’s Eve. So two weeks
> before the festival the researchers randomly let off firecrackers near
> a bicycle shed at a main railway station and watched what happened
> using their flyer technique. With no fireworks, 48% of people took the
> flyers with them when they collected their bikes. With fireworks, this
> fell to 20%.
> The most dramatic result, though, was the one that showed a doubling
> in the number of people who were prepared to steal in a condition of
> disorder. In this case an envelope with a €5 ($6) note inside (and the
> note clearly visible through the address window) was left sticking out
> of a post box. In a condition of order, 13% of those passing took the
> envelope (instead of leaving it or pushing it into the box). But if
> the post box was covered in graffiti, 27% did. Even if the post box
> had no graffiti on it, but the area around it was littered with paper,
> orange peel, cigarette butts and empty cans, 25% still took the
> envelope.
> The researchers’ conclusion is that one example of disorder, like
> graffiti or littering, can indeed encourage another, like stealing. Dr
> Kelling was right. The message for policymakers and police officers is
> that clearing up graffiti or littering promptly could help fight the
> spread of crime.
Neil, honey, learn to think out of the box. Let go of your negative
biases and live in accordance with your real limitless potential.
Learn to view painted walls and flying paper messages as colourful
autumn leaves in our man made concrete jungle. Love and embrace these
expressions of unique human craftsmanship and see what sprouts it will
bring next spring. May peace find its way to your mind. :-)
On 22 Nov., 07:26, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Dr Kelling’s theory takes its name from the observation that a few
> broken windows in an empty building quickly lead to more smashed
> panes, more vandalism and eventually to break-ins. The tendency for
> people to behave in a particular way can be strengthened or weakened
> depending on what they observe others to be doing. This does not
> necessarily mean that people will copy bad behaviour exactly, reaching
> for a spray can when they see graffiti. Rather, says Dr Keizer, it can
> foster the “violation” of other norms of behaviour. It was this effect
> that his experiments, which have just been published in Science, set
> out to test.
> His group’s first study was conducted in an alley that is frequently
> used to park bicycles. As in all of their experiments, the researchers
> created two conditions: one of order and the other of disorder. In the
> former, the walls of the alley were freshly painted; in the latter,
> they were tagged with graffiti (but not elaborately, to avoid the
> perception that it might be art). In both states a large sign
> prohibiting graffiti was put up, so that it would not be missed by
> anyone who came to collect a bicycle. All the bikes then had a flyer
> promoting a non-existent sports shop attached to their handlebars.
> This needed to be removed before a bicycle could be ridden.
> When owners returned, their behaviour was secretly observed. There
> were no rubbish bins in the alley, so a cyclist had three choices. He
> could take the flyer with him, hang it on another bicycle (which the
> researchers counted as littering) or throw it to the floor. When the
> alley contained graffiti, 69% of the riders littered compared with 33%
> when the walls were clean.
> To remove one possible bias—that litter encourages more litter—the
> researchers inconspicuously picked up each castaway flyer. Nor, they
> say, could the effect be explained by litterers assuming that because
> the spraying of graffiti had not been prevented, it was also unlikely
> that they would be caught. Littering, Dr Keizer observes, is generally
> tolerated by the police in Groningen.
> The other experiments were carried out in a similar way. In one, a
> temporary fence was used to close off a short cut to a car park,
> except for a narrow gap. Two signs were erected, one telling people
> there was no throughway and the other saying that bicycles must not be
> left locked to the fence. In the “order” condition (with four bicycles
> parked nearby, but not locked to the fence) 27% of people were
> prepared to trespass by stepping through the gap, whereas in the
> disorder condition (with the four bikes locked to the fence, in
> violation of the sign) 82% took the short cut.
> Nor were the effects limited to visual observation of petty criminal
> behaviour. It is against the law to let off fireworks in the
> Netherlands for several weeks before New Year’s Eve. So two weeks
> before the festival the researchers randomly let off firecrackers near
> a bicycle shed at a main railway station and watched what happened
> using their flyer technique. With no fireworks, 48% of people took the
> flyers with them when they collected their bikes. With fireworks, this
> fell to 20%.
> The most dramatic result, though, was the one that showed a doubling
> in the number of people who were prepared to steal in a condition of
> disorder. In this case an envelope with a €5 ($6) note inside (and the
> note clearly visible through the address window) was left sticking out
> of a post box. In a condition of order, 13% of those passing took the
> envelope (instead of leaving it or pushing it into the box). But if
> the post box was covered in graffiti, 27% did. Even if the post box
> had no graffiti on it, but the area around it was littered with paper,
> orange peel, cigarette butts and empty cans, 25% still took the
> envelope.
> The researchers’ conclusion is that one example of disorder, like
> graffiti or littering, can indeed encourage another, like stealing. Dr
> Kelling was right. The message for policymakers and police officers is
> that clearing up graffiti or littering promptly could help fight the
> spread of crime.
Yes archy, get out of the box. Can't you see that the colorful
graffiti on our walls, fences, mailboxes, houses, trains, and signs
are taggers marking their territorial gangland perimeters and that
these punks have the right to vandalize the property of others in
order to express their depravities and send messages to their
adversaries? The litter is just letting us know that we live amongst
people with a garbage mentality and that these parasites who think
someone else should clean up after them are just misunderstood.
Well gotta go my neighbors dog just left a huge warm loving gift for
me to either pick up or step on when mowing the lawn.
What a piece of work!
On Nov 23, 7:20 am, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would tend to agree with the entire conclusion. Areas where graffiti
> and litter are rampant are also victimized by criminal activity. When
> an area is disheveled it serves to encourage bad behavior as each
> individual would not feel responsible as the initiator but only as
> just another person participating in something that already existed.
> If ten windows are already broken in a vacant building then what would
> it matter if two more are broken. People throw trash out of the car
> window in a neighbor where trash is all over the street but would not
> do the same in a very clean neighborhood. The immediate cleansing of
> graffiti tends to reduce the recurrence of the activity. It would
> seem those responsible for the impish behavior are both too lazy to
> continue re tagging and afraid of capture during their return to the
> scene.
> On Nov 22, 12:26 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Dr Kelling’s theory takes its name from the observation that a few
> > broken windows in an empty building quickly lead to more smashed
> > panes, more vandalism and eventually to break-ins. The tendency for
> > people to behave in a particular way can be strengthened or weakened
> > depending on what they observe others to be doing. This does not
> > necessarily mean that people will copy bad behaviour exactly, reaching
> > for a spray can when they see graffiti. Rather, says Dr Keizer, it can
> > foster the “violation” of other norms of behaviour. It was this effect
> > that his experiments, which have just been published in Science, set
> > out to test.
> > His group’s first study was conducted in an alley that is frequently
> > used to park bicycles. As in all of their experiments, the researchers
> > created two conditions: one of order and the other of disorder. In the
> > former, the walls of the alley were freshly painted; in the latter,
> > they were tagged with graffiti (but not elaborately, to avoid the
> > perception that it might be art). In both states a large sign
> > prohibiting graffiti was put up, so that it would not be missed by
> > anyone who came to collect a bicycle. All the bikes then had a flyer
> > promoting a non-existent sports shop attached to their handlebars.
> > This needed to be removed before a bicycle could be ridden.
> > When owners returned, their behaviour was secretly observed. There
> > were no rubbish bins in the alley, so a cyclist had three choices. He
> > could take the flyer with him, hang it on another bicycle (which the
> > researchers counted as littering) or throw it to the floor. When the
> > alley contained graffiti, 69% of the riders littered compared with 33%
> > when the walls were clean.
> > To remove one possible bias—that litter encourages more litter—the
> > researchers inconspicuously picked up each castaway flyer. Nor, they
> > say, could the effect be explained by litterers assuming that because
> > the spraying of graffiti had not been prevented, it was also unlikely
> > that they would be caught. Littering, Dr Keizer observes, is generally
> > tolerated by the police in Groningen.
> > The other experiments were carried out in a similar way. In one, a
> > temporary fence was used to close off a short cut to a car park,
> > except for a narrow gap. Two signs were erected, one telling people
> > there was no throughway and the other saying that bicycles must not be
> > left locked to the fence. In the “order” condition (with four bicycles
> > parked nearby, but not locked to the fence) 27% of people were
> > prepared to trespass by stepping through the gap, whereas in the
> > disorder condition (with the four bikes locked to the fence, in
> > violation of the sign) 82% took the short cut.
> > Nor were the effects limited to visual observation of petty criminal
> > behaviour. It is against the law to let off fireworks in the
> > Netherlands for several weeks before New Year’s Eve. So two weeks
> > before the festival the researchers randomly let off firecrackers near
> > a bicycle shed at a main railway station and watched what happened
> > using their flyer technique. With no fireworks, 48% of people took the
> > flyers with them when they collected their bikes. With fireworks, this
> > fell to 20%.
> > The most dramatic result, though, was the one that showed a doubling
> > in the number of people who were prepared to steal in a condition of
> > disorder. In this case an envelope with a €5 ($6) note inside (and the
> > note clearly visible through the address window) was left sticking out
> > of a post box. In a condition of order, 13% of those passing took the
> > envelope (instead of leaving it or pushing it into the box). But if
> > the post box was covered in graffiti, 27% did. Even if the post box
> > had no graffiti on it, but the area around it was littered with paper,
> > orange peel, cigarette butts and empty cans, 25% still took the
> > envelope.
> > The researchers’ conclusion is that one example of disorder, like
> > graffiti or littering, can indeed encourage another, like stealing. Dr
> > Kelling was right. The message for policymakers and police officers is
> > that clearing up graffiti or littering promptly could help fight the
> > spread of crime.
My sympathies are with Slip - yet really good graffitti like "BECAUSE
I'M WORTHLESS" makes me think Gabbers has a point. I've just been
discussing the use of hair drug-testing for problem families as an
alternative to training social workers to tell when liars are lying.
I am coming to the view that social workers and police windows should
be broken for every illicit piece of dog crap. I guess I'm tired of
human rightists warning that we need to protect crooks (forgetting
downline human rights) and people prepared to destroy even their own
kids' lives. I've been out of the box for some time.
On 23 Nov, 18:57, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes archy, get out of the box. Can't you see that the colorful
> graffiti on our walls, fences, mailboxes, houses, trains, and signs
> are taggers marking their territorial gangland perimeters and that
> these punks have the right to vandalize the property of others in
> order to express their depravities and send messages to their
> adversaries? The litter is just letting us know that we live amongst
> people with a garbage mentality and that these parasites who think
> someone else should clean up after them are just misunderstood.
> Well gotta go my neighbors dog just left a huge warm loving gift for
> me to either pick up or step on when mowing the lawn.
> What a piece of work!
> On Nov 23, 7:20 am, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I would tend to agree with the entire conclusion. Areas where graffiti
> > and litter are rampant are also victimized by criminal activity. When
> > an area is disheveled it serves to encourage bad behavior as each
> > individual would not feel responsible as the initiator but only as
> > just another person participating in something that already existed.
> > If ten windows are already broken in a vacant building then what would
> > it matter if two more are broken. People throw trash out of the car
> > window in a neighbor where trash is all over the street but would not
> > do the same in a very clean neighborhood. The immediate cleansing of
> > graffiti tends to reduce the recurrence of the activity. It would
> > seem those responsible for the impish behavior are both too lazy to
> > continue re tagging and afraid of capture during their return to the
> > scene.
> > On Nov 22, 12:26 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > Dr Kelling’s theory takes its name from the observation that a few
> > > broken windows in an empty building quickly lead to more smashed
> > > panes, more vandalism and eventually to break-ins. The tendency for
> > > people to behave in a particular way can be strengthened or weakened
> > > depending on what they observe others to be doing. This does not
> > > necessarily mean that people will copy bad behaviour exactly, reaching
> > > for a spray can when they see graffiti. Rather, says Dr Keizer, it can
> > > foster the “violation” of other norms of behaviour. It was this effect
> > > that his experiments, which have just been published in Science, set
> > > out to test.
> > > His group’s first study was conducted in an alley that is frequently
> > > used to park bicycles. As in all of their experiments, the researchers
> > > created two conditions: one of order and the other of disorder. In the
> > > former, the walls of the alley were freshly painted; in the latter,
> > > they were tagged with graffiti (but not elaborately, to avoid the
> > > perception that it might be art). In both states a large sign
> > > prohibiting graffiti was put up, so that it would not be missed by
> > > anyone who came to collect a bicycle. All the bikes then had a flyer
> > > promoting a non-existent sports shop attached to their handlebars.
> > > This needed to be removed before a bicycle could be ridden.
> > > When owners returned, their behaviour was secretly observed. There
> > > were no rubbish bins in the alley, so a cyclist had three choices. He
> > > could take the flyer with him, hang it on another bicycle (which the
> > > researchers counted as littering) or throw it to the floor. When the
> > > alley contained graffiti, 69% of the riders littered compared with 33%
> > > when the walls were clean.
> > > To remove one possible bias—that litter encourages more litter—the
> > > researchers inconspicuously picked up each castaway flyer. Nor, they
> > > say, could the effect be explained by litterers assuming that because
> > > the spraying of graffiti had not been prevented, it was also unlikely
> > > that they would be caught. Littering, Dr Keizer observes, is generally
> > > tolerated by the police in Groningen.
> > > The other experiments were carried out in a similar way. In one, a
> > > temporary fence was used to close off a short cut to a car park,
> > > except for a narrow gap. Two signs were erected, one telling people
> > > there was no throughway and the other saying that bicycles must not be
> > > left locked to the fence. In the “order” condition (with four bicycles
> > > parked nearby, but not locked to the fence) 27% of people were
> > > prepared to trespass by stepping through the gap, whereas in the
> > > disorder condition (with the four bikes locked to the fence, in
> > > violation of the sign) 82% took the short cut.
> > > Nor were the effects limited to visual observation of petty criminal
> > > behaviour. It is against the law to let off fireworks in the
> > > Netherlands for several weeks before New Year’s Eve. So two weeks
> > > before the festival the researchers randomly let off firecrackers near
> > > a bicycle shed at a main railway station and watched what happened
> > > using their flyer technique. With no fireworks, 48% of people took the
> > > flyers with them when they collected their bikes. With fireworks, this
> > > fell to 20%.
> > > The most dramatic result, though, was the one that showed a doubling
> > > in the number of people who were prepared to steal in a condition of
> > > disorder. In this case an envelope with a €5 ($6) note inside (and the
> > > note clearly visible through the address window) was left sticking out
> > > of a post box. In a condition of order, 13% of those passing took the
> > > envelope (instead of leaving it or pushing it into the box). But if
> > > the post box was covered in graffiti, 27% did. Even if the post box
> > > had no graffiti on it, but the area around it was littered with paper,
> > > orange peel, cigarette butts and empty cans, 25% still took the
> > > envelope.
> > > The researchers’ conclusion is that one example of disorder, like
> > > graffiti or littering, can indeed encourage another, like stealing. Dr
> > > Kelling was right. The message for policymakers and police officers is
> > > that clearing up graffiti or littering promptly could help fight the
> > > spread of crime.
> > > The above is from the Economist.- Hide quoted text -
What good is really good graffiti in a really bad place? As an artist
myself I could easily paint a nice piece on my neighbors garage door
but I don't think they would appreciate the art work as much as I
would. Graffiti artists basically demand that you see their work and
force their exposure down everyone's throat regardless of like or
dislike. Still the main "problem" concerning graffiti is not quality
graffiti art but the tagging of initials on everything that moves and
doesn't move.
Taggers don't realize that the graffiti brings down the value of a
community. People have a hard time selling their homes when the
neighborhood is full of graffiti. When I'm driving down the road and I
start to see graffiti everywhere I know that I'm in a high crime area
and hope my vehicle does not break down. It looks ugly and stupid.
Graffiti and trash on the streets usually go hand in hand. Graffiti is
vandalism.
Destruction of private property is wrong whether it be broken windows,
graffiti or unsightly mounds of trash. It also points to the degree
of civility or lack of in the world today. This is not progress in
civilization.
On Nov 25, 9:06 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> My sympathies are with Slip - yet really good graffitti like "BECAUSE
> I'M WORTHLESS" makes me think Gabbers has a point. I've just been
> discussing the use of hair drug-testing for problem families as an
> alternative to training social workers to tell when liars are lying.
> I am coming to the view that social workers and police windows should
> be broken for every illicit piece of dog crap. I guess I'm tired of
> human rightists warning that we need to protect crooks (forgetting
> downline human rights) and people prepared to destroy even their own
> kids' lives. I've been out of the box for some time.
> On 23 Nov, 18:57, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Yes archy, get out of the box. Can't you see that the colorful
> > graffiti on our walls, fences, mailboxes, houses, trains, and signs
> > are taggers marking their territorial gangland perimeters and that
> > these punks have the right to vandalize the property of others in
> > order to express their depravities and send messages to their
> > adversaries? The litter is just letting us know that we live amongst
> > people with a garbage mentality and that these parasites who think
> > someone else should clean up after them are just misunderstood.
> > Well gotta go my neighbors dog just left a huge warm loving gift for
> > me to either pick up or step on when mowing the lawn.
> > What a piece of work!
> > On Nov 23, 7:20 am, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I would tend to agree with the entire conclusion. Areas where graffiti
> > > and litter are rampant are also victimized by criminal activity. When
> > > an area is disheveled it serves to encourage bad behavior as each
> > > individual would not feel responsible as the initiator but only as
> > > just another person participating in something that already existed.
> > > If ten windows are already broken in a vacant building then what would
> > > it matter if two more are broken. People throw trash out of the car
> > > window in a neighbor where trash is all over the street but would not
> > > do the same in a very clean neighborhood. The immediate cleansing of
> > > graffiti tends to reduce the recurrence of the activity. It would
> > > seem those responsible for the impish behavior are both too lazy to
> > > continue re tagging and afraid of capture during their return to the
> > > scene.
> > > On Nov 22, 12:26 am, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > Dr Kelling’s theory takes its name from the observation that a few
> > > > broken windows in an empty building quickly lead to more smashed
> > > > panes, more vandalism and eventually to break-ins. The tendency for
> > > > people to behave in a particular way can be strengthened or weakened
> > > > depending on what they observe others to be doing. This does not
> > > > necessarily mean that people will copy bad behaviour exactly, reaching
> > > > for a spray can when they see graffiti. Rather, says Dr Keizer, it can
> > > > foster the “violation” of other norms of behaviour. It was this effect
> > > > that his experiments, which have just been published in Science, set
> > > > out to test.
> > > > His group’s first study was conducted in an alley that is frequently
> > > > used to park bicycles. As in all of their experiments, the researchers
> > > > created two conditions: one of order and the other of disorder. In the
> > > > former, the walls of the alley were freshly painted; in the latter,
> > > > they were tagged with graffiti (but not elaborately, to avoid the
> > > > perception that it might be art). In both states a large sign
> > > > prohibiting graffiti was put up, so that it would not be missed by
> > > > anyone who came to collect a bicycle. All the bikes then had a flyer
> > > > promoting a non-existent sports shop attached to their handlebars.
> > > > This needed to be removed before a bicycle could be ridden.
> > > > When owners returned, their behaviour was secretly observed. There
> > > > were no rubbish bins in the alley, so a cyclist had three choices. He
> > > > could take the flyer with him, hang it on another bicycle (which the
> > > > researchers counted as littering) or throw it to the floor. When the
> > > > alley contained graffiti, 69% of the riders littered compared with 33%
> > > > when the walls were clean.
> > > > To remove one possible bias—that litter encourages more litter—the
> > > > researchers inconspicuously picked up each castaway flyer. Nor, they
> > > > say, could the effect be explained by litterers assuming that because
> > > > the spraying of graffiti had not been prevented, it was also unlikely
> > > > that they would be caught. Littering, Dr Keizer observes, is generally
> > > > tolerated by the police in Groningen.
> > > > The other experiments were carried out in a similar way. In one, a
> > > > temporary fence was used to close off a short cut to a car park,
> > > > except for a narrow gap. Two signs were erected, one telling people
> > > > there was no throughway and the other saying that bicycles must not be
> > > > left locked to the fence. In the “order” condition (with four bicycles
> > > > parked nearby, but not locked to the fence) 27% of people were
> > > > prepared to trespass by stepping through the gap, whereas in the
> > > > disorder condition (with the four bikes locked to the fence, in
> > > > violation of the sign) 82% took the short cut.
> > > > Nor were the effects limited to visual observation of petty criminal
> > > > behaviour. It is against the law to let off fireworks in the
> > > > Netherlands for several weeks before New Year’s Eve. So two weeks
> > > > before the festival the researchers randomly let off firecrackers near
> > > > a bicycle shed at a main railway station and watched what happened
> > > > using their flyer technique. With no fireworks, 48% of people took the
> > > > flyers with them when they collected their bikes. With fireworks, this
> > > > fell to 20%.
> > > > The most dramatic result, though, was the one that showed a doubling
> > > > in the number of people who were prepared to steal in a condition of
> > > > disorder. In this case an envelope with a €5 ($6) note inside (and the
> > > > note clearly visible through the address window) was left sticking out
> > > > of a post box. In a condition of order, 13% of those passing took the
> > > > envelope (instead of leaving it or pushing it into the box). But if
> > > > the post box was covered in graffiti, 27% did. Even if the post box
> > > > had no graffiti on it, but the area around it was littered with paper,
> > > > orange peel, cigarette butts and empty cans, 25% still took the
> > > > envelope.
> > > > The researchers’ conclusion is that one example of disorder, like
> > > > graffiti or littering, can indeed encourage another, like stealing. Dr
> > > > Kelling was right. The message for policymakers and police officers is
> > > > that clearing up graffiti or littering promptly could help fight the
> > > > spread of crime.
> > > > The above is from the Economist.- Hide quoted text -
