Graffiti costs hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to remove from our rail system. Trains are taken out of service to have painted messages removed and this cost comes from the public purse. The government employs Transit Officers to patrol trains to try and keep graffiti under control - but it seems that the courts have very different ideas on what does - and what does not - constitute " crime " !
A Transit Officer caught an eighteen year old male using a marker pen to scrawl graffiti on the wall of a carriage on a central coast train. He placed this young man under arrest and in retaliation, the culprit head butted him. This led to charges of assault in addition to the illegal act of defacing public property - and the matter went to court.
The magistrate dismissed the assault charge because he contended that the Transit Officer should have taken the culprit's details instead of arresting him. As a result, he deemed the arrest unlawful, and therefore the admission of evidence from the Transit Officer on the assault would be " inadmissible ". The offender pleaded guilty to the graffiti charge - and received a small fine.
What sort of message does that deliver to the army of louts, deviants and muggers that ride our trains and gleefully assault other passengers, ignore laws prohibiting the drinking of alcohol - and pass the time scrawling graffiti on every possible surface ? The worst that can happen if they get caught - is for the officer to demand their name and address - and in many cases they are prepared for that with bogus details.
That used to be the ruse that fare evaders used to avoid convictions. The most station staff at ticket barriers were allowed to ask was for the name and address of the culprit - and as a consequence the debt recovery section faced reams of fruitless searches for people with names like " Donald Duck " that seemingly lived on what were suburban vacant lots.
To be arrested - cuffed - marched off a train and held for an identity check at a police station at least underscores the fact that graffiti is a serious crime that brings consequences. The fact that the offender launches a physical attack on a Transit Officer simply doing his or her duty is inexcusable under any circumstances. If we allow law enforcement to become punching bags at the whim of offenders we have lost control of a civilized society.
Magistrates are allowed " discretion " to ponder circumstances, but there should be no question in the framing of laws as to what they actually mean. Another magistrate - in another court - hearing a case with identical charges might deliver an entirely different verdict. It is time the law makers cleaned up their act and codified the laws to explicitly spell out how they apply.
With this verdict ringing in their ears, it must be difficult for Transit Officers to carry out their duties - knowing that the law will most likely offer them no protection if they are assaulted !
No comments:
Post a Comment