Should Banksy be put in prison?

Anonymous street artist Banksy is renowned for his controversial satirical street art, where dark humour and politics meet graffiti. To many, Banksy is an artistic genius whose work has gone onto sell for up to $1.87 million, with art projects such as Dismlanad in 2015 paying tribute to his work and legacy, and Banksy exhibitions being displayed across the globe, it is clear that Banksy has become a cultural phenomenon.

However, his critics argue that Banksy’s urban graffiti is not worth the artistic praise it receives and that he should not be the only person excused from vandalising Britain’s walls. Environmental law states that graffiti "is an act of criminal damage under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, and those found guilty can be punished with a maximum fine of £5,000" – so why should Banksy be considered any exception to this?

So, is Banksy an artist of the times, inspiring political thought and engagement with contemporary issues, or is he nothing more than a glorified criminal who continues to get away with criminal damage?

Which of these views do you think is correct?

______________________________________________________________________________________________


Anna Tippett:
I am a Lecturer in Criminology and teach across the modules Understanding Crime and Deviance, Sociological Theories of Criminal Behaviour, and Hate Crime and Discrimination. I have been working at the University of Hertfordshire since September 2017 and taught at several higher education institutions prior to this. My research interests focus on gendered constructions of deviancy, sexuality, discrimination and human rights.

Melanie Collard
I am a Senior Lecturer in Law and Criminology and teach on the modules Sociological Theories of Crime, State Crime and Criminal Law. My research interests are interdisciplinary and lie within the areas of human rights, criminal law and critical criminology. My recently published book 'Torture as State Crime' is an empirical investigation into the making of torturers in Argentina prior to and during its Dirty War (1976-1983).

I feel it's a case of exception, if it's art can it still be damage? critics aside people pay, people look, people talk. Be a different matter if he was nicked red handed I suppose.

If another street artist thinks they should have the same 'special treatment' then it's on them to have the stones and skill to prove it, systems make allowances for those that provoke.

Wether or not it is art, it is still vandalism though.


OP- he should be getting the fines imo, but then how can we when no one knows who he is?

It's not vandalism in everyones eyes, and that's important, he isn't destroying things or rendering them unusable....it's hard to make a case that his actions are to the detriment to the majority of land/space users.

Don't see any reason he shouldn't pay a fine if convicted but it's spare change to him, folk would likely pay it FOR him

How would someone be put into prison for a crime where the the maximum punishment is a £5000 fine?

Prison can be a punishment for not paying said fines.

That's a completely different crime. Unless I missed something, he's merely being accused of vandalism.

But then how do we define what vandalism is?
You get teenagers doing grafitti art on walls and writing random words- is that vandalism? Some people may not see it as vandalism wherelse others will do. How do we determine what the clear cut definition for vandalism is?

How would someone be put into prison for a crime where the the maximum punishment is a £5000 fine?

Absolutely. I don't know why we allow that commie piece of trash to still roam the streets freely. He is a criminal and the youth need to stop glamorising his wicked behaviour. I also forgot to mention that hes an attention seeking drama queen.