Part II - Theoretical Issues on Criminal Damage

Question 1

Criminal Damage Theory - what is special about damaging property?

Answer 1

> Could argue one offence of wrongful interference with property interests instead of CD and theft.
But, Simester and Sullivan argue that the 2 are different:
1. CD is different as often linked with OAPs - ‘many typical instances of criminal damage involve forms of vandalism employing percussive force, fire or explosions, conduct that may well cause alarm and concern even to bystanders lacking any proprietary interest in the property damaged.
2. CD e.g. vandalism can contain an expressive dimension: communicating a contempt for society/victim.

Question 2

Criminal Damage Theory - should it be an offence to damage your own property?

Answer 2

> Assumed that fundamental aspect of ownership is that one is free to destroy one’s own property.
Halpern (1997): Some argue that an artist has creative rights in their property even after sold.
E.g. American Visual Artists Rights Act 1990 disallows destruction of an original/limited edition and signed work where artist is of recognised stature & their reputation would be harmed.

Question 3

Criminal Damage Theory - definition of damage

Answer 3

> Several instances where unclear if property has been damaged, e.g. grafitti.
M.A. Gomez, ‘The Writing on Our Walls: Finding Solutions through Distinguishing Graffiti Art from Graffiti Vandalism’ (1993).

Question 4

Criminal Damage Theory - M.A. Gomez

Answer 4

> M.A. Gomez, ‘The Writing on Our Walls: Finding Solutions through Distinguishing Graffiti Art from Graffiti Vandalism’ (1993).
-Motivations behind graffiti can differ.
‘Graffiti art’ is created by those with desire to create artwork whereas ‘graffiti vandalism’ is motivated by desire to mark territory, create notoriety, or show one’s defiance of the law & society.
A view that all graffiti is ‘ugly’ and vandalism fails to preserve the more intricate pieces of graffiti recognised as art.
They fail to appreciate what graffiti represents to the youth culture and what motivates the writer. Their only solution is to outlaw all graffiti & punish all writers.
Others differentiate more carefully & recognise the motivation of many writers isn’t to deface property intentionally, but rather to express themselves or gain respect by the only means that are accessible to them.
However, they recognise that graffiti does deface property and so try to find alternative ways to work e.g. on commissioned property or in sponsored exhibitions/programs.