There was a certain amount of grandstanding by ACT Attorney-General Gary Humphries in his get-tough approach to Canberra’s graffitists. Mr Humphries wants to make those who deface signs and walls to clean up the mess they make. That approach will gain a fair degree of support in the community, judging by the anger graffiti generates in the letters columns and talk-back radio.
Some people might go further and call for parents to be held responsible for their children’s misdemeanours, as in some states of the United States.
Earlier, there were concerns that the caustic cleaning materials might harms the mainly young, unskilled graffitists, but now it seems they can learn to deal with the chemicals without harming themselves.
Of course, it has always been open to magistrates to make a wide variety of activities a condition of good-behaviour bonds, including clean-up orders.
The main difficulty with the get-tough approach is that the culprits have to be caught first. So it can never be a total solution.
A cocktail approach is more likely to be successful. A tough, humiliating punishment may be a deterrent for some. Others, however, are so alienated that seeing others punished, or even being punished themselves, will make little difference.
Better and more colourful designs of public blank space might help. Graffitists prefer a blank canvas to competing with existing artwork. Places where graffiti is welcome could be provided. Signs could be raised out of some graffitists reach. Some tightening up of the paint supply might help, especially stopping full cans being displayed in places where they are easily shoplifted.