Grafitti Artists' Brother and Family Campaign Against "Harsh" Sentence

[Si Hunt]

20 year old Thomas Dolan and 18 year old Thomas Whittaker - both from Macclesfield are beginning 15 and 12 month prison sentences respectively after admitting criminal damage at Manchester Crown Court.

They were responsible for graffiti on trains, stations and railway property in Gatley, Bury, Buxton, Wigan, Macclesfield, Stockport and Longsight. The cost of damage has been estimated at £13,000.

The men were traced after British Transport Police (BTP) tracked website postings of their work. Dolan used the graffiti tag of Krek and Whittaker went by the name of Mers.

The court's decision to jail the pair has shocked their friends and family. More than 1,500 people have signed a Facebook petition to 'Free Kreky' - aka Thomas Dolan - who is detained at Lancaster Farm young offenders' institute.

His mother Denise Dolan believes that the decision to jail the pair is excessive: "What they've done is against the law but the punishment should fit the crime."

To clear one thing up before we discuss this, note that no-one is saying that what these lads did was right. The family's point, thankfully, is merely that their sentence is unduly harsh. What do you think? I'm sure people have got less for drink driving and other serious crimes, and apparently they are in quite a high rating prison (i.e for major offenders). Should the courts have treated them this harshly?

Si.

[Captain Tancredi]

This story was on Granada Reports the same night that Chris Langham was sentenced to ten months, which pretty much says it all. One kind of damage can be painted over and the other can't.

[Si Hunt]

Hang on though. What "damage" done by Langham "can't be painted over"? I'm not excusing what he did, but he didn't assault anyone, he looked at some disgusting material on a web site. I'm just confused as to what you mean.

Where-as while "painting over" sounds quite simple, it's actually going to cost the taxpayer £30,000. Surely for that they should be punished?

Si.

[Pip Madeley]

Of course these days, due to overcrowding, a prison sentence is never a fixed number of months. They'll both be out within six.

[Si Hunt]

I think what gets me is that what the family are effectively saying is "But that punishment is really harsh, how about something more pleasant" (they've suggested community service or paying back the damage). But surely the point of the sentence is that it SHOULD punish them, and be sufficient to make them not do it again.

I was amused that his brother was on the news this morning and said his brother "was being locked up for 56 hours a day". Quite a feat.

Si.

[WhiteCrow]

We have some odd ideas of justice in this country "we demand more lenient sentances for the guilty".

Our justice system can be a bit wierd, I mean a recent judicial review suggested no longer giving custodial sentances to burglars, however we regularly send pensioners to jail for refusing to pay poll tax. Shows the priority of our justice system.

Personally I think these guys need to be sent to prison - in all likelihood they won't even be in for 6 months.

[Si Hunt]

The burglery thing is shocking. My Nan was burgled, and it's more than just a theft. It's like mental rape, and I don't think anyone who hasn't gone through it knows what it's like to be in your home knowing a stranger has defiled it, gone through your belongings, rooted through your more personal things. My Grandad had not long since died, and they took my Nan's wedding and engagement rings, the only things she really had to remind her of him. She felt forced to sell the house it devastated her so much. And they don't want to give them a jail sentence...

Si.

[Dirk Gently]

I think this shows that far from being too harsh, these sentences are infact what most people would want offenders to get & other crimes should be punished more, not less punishment for these crimes in question.

[SiHart]

The thing is it's still a crime, and should be punished. I suspect that the harsh punishment is meant to be seen a deterrent to make other's who graffitti think twice about it. Fair enough I say.
After having to scrub grafittii off the front of my shop's shutters more than a few times back in the day, all I agree wholeheartedly with this response.

Si xx

[Wayne]

With regard to it being out of perspective with the sentences given for much worse crimes, i'd agree in the sense that the punishments for drink driving/child abuse/sexual assault/rape/murder/etc... should be much harsher then they are already. So i think the punishment for this crime is about right.

[Captain Tancredi]

OK, to expand a bit more, to begin with I'm slightly privileged in that I saw the local news report which gave a bit more detail (and my first response was an attempt to compress a discussion with my mum and dad into a single sentence, which obviously didn't succeed).

What came out in the Granada report was that these were two middle-class, art school trained individuals rather than just random taggers. I can't help feeling that where graffiti is concerned, there's something of a grey area because some authorities encourage it under certain conditions as contemporary art- I took a picture of a particularly attractive piece in Rome, and one of my prized possessions is a bit of the Berlin Wall with a bit of green spray paint on one side. And ultimately, crimes against property should be dealt with on a lesser scale than crimes against people- if you own something, it's your responsibility to protect and insure it, and if you don't then you live with the potential consequences (speaking as somebody who used to work in the insurance industry). Graffiti is an awful lot easier to remove than a physical or psychological scar.

Having said that, some of the damage was done to preserved railway carriages which were restored by volunteers, which is unfortunate, but the most appropriate punishment would surely have been community service removing graffiti. In all probability the prison sentence was imposed because they weren't in a financial position to pay a fine (based on my knowledge of fraud cases in my current employment, where a non-custodial sentence was applied because the fraudster's parents were in a position to repay the stolen funds).

[Si Hunt]

I don't really think it's fair to say that property is "the responsibility of those that own it", especially when this was public property! It sounds like you're suggesting it's our fault for not stopping them doing it!

Also they showed an example of creative, quite attractive, grafitti art on the news this morning. Then they showed what these lads had done - and it was horrible, just a dirty, unintelligent mess. So I don't buy it was "art", nor do I agree with treating them differently because they are "art school trained"!!

the most appropriate punishment would surely have been community service removing graffiti

What makes me disagree with this is that the families agreed with you that this would be suitable. If they don't mind doing it, it's not exactly a good punishment as it's unlikely to prevent them defacing our property again.

Si.

[Lissa]

They should be made to do community service and pay off the cost of repairing their handiwork. £13,000 at the minimum wage for 18 to 21 year olds would come to 2,900 hours between the pair of them.

[Matthew T]

we regularly send pensioners to jail for refusing to pay poll tax.

That's not true though, is it, outside of the pages of the Daily Mail!

It does happen, but it's incredibly rare and only used as a last resort. And if they're refusing to pay their taxes like everyone else has to then it's their own fault!

As for these two graffiti "artists", no I don't think they should've gone to prison. I believe prison should always be a very last resort reserved for serious offences and repeat offenders.

[Captain Tancredi]

I don't really think it's fair to say that property is "the responsibility of those that own it", especially when this was public property! It sounds like you're suggesting it's our fault for not stopping them doing it!

But it's not public property. Since rail privatisation, stations are owned by Network Rail and rolling stock is owned by leasing companies, who lease the trains to the operators. They're a revenue-earning asset of a private company run for profit.

[Si Hunt]

Ok same principle though. If someone put a brick through your front window, how receptive would you be to the argument that, in all fairness, it was your job to protect it?

Si.

[WhiteCrow]

Whenever happened to "if you can't to the time don't do the crime"?

[Nathan]

The burglery thing is shocking. My Nan was burgled, and it's more than just a theft. It's like mental rape, and I don't think anyone who hasn't gone through it knows what it's like to be in your home knowing a stranger has defiled it, gone through your belongings, rooted through your more personal things. My Grandad had not long since died, and they took my Nan's wedding and engagement rings, the only things she really had to remind her of him. She felt forced to sell the house it devastated her so much. And they don't want to give them a jail sentence...

Si.

If they had stole her mobile phone than I think a jail sentence would be mandatory! They bring odd sentences in all the time to discourage certain common crimes (such as phone thefts). It's bonkers.

[Dirk Gently]

This story was on Granada Reports the same night that Chris Langham was sentenced to ten months, which pretty much says it all. One kind of damage can be painted over and the other can't.

He's now free if anyone wants to know.

The actor Chris Langham left prison last night after winning a four-month reduction in his sentence, which he got for downloading child pornography, and said: "My life has been ruined but my conscience is clear."

Mr Langham, 58, was sent to prison in September for 10 months after being found guilty of 15 counts of making an indecent photograph of a child.

His second application for a sentence reduction was successful at a hearing before three judges at the Court of Appeal in London. Without the reduction, the comic actor, and star of The Thick of It, was due for release in six weeks' time.

I wonder what the argument was that convinced the Judges to reduce his sentence?

[Rob McCow]

Perhaps he's not a threat to the community?

I've got no idea, I really don't want to go into the details of the case.

[Wayne]

I'm not sure what to think about it, but just a little oddity:

making an indecent photograph of a child.

What does that mean? It's obviously not the same at taking an indecent photograph of a child. Is it just a strange way of saying that he downloaded indecent images of a children?