 |
| An example of a bashed mailbox. This is a moderate case. The owner is probably lucky they did not destroy the wooden pole as well. |
I was driving in a small, southern Indiana town called Ramsey that lies five minutes away from Crawford County, Indiana. I was driving down a road called West Whiskey Run, when I saw a red object in the corner of my eye. I slowed down, and once I got closer I could see what had happened. The red object was a mailbox that was made of steel. It was attached to a solid steel pole. The mailbox was completely uprooted and laying on its side. When I say uprooted, I mean the owner of this mailbox had cemented the steel pole in a two feet by two feet base of solid concrete and secured it into the ground. The usual bashing techniques, which mainly consist of a baseball bat or large rocks, would not suffice for this mailbox. West Whiskey Run Road is the victim of extremely frequent mailbox bashing parties. These vandals would not let this one go. The only way to uproot this mailbox would have been to tie a chain around the mailbox and pull it out with a vehicle. This would not do either though. As I stopped by the mailbox, I saw that there were tire marks on the red mailbox. The vandals had to drive their car over it to put the icing on the cake. Contrary to popular belief, crime, especially vandalism, occurs frequently in rural communities. The vandalism can be anything from mailbox bashing, destroying road signs, messing up public buildings, and specific to Crawford County, vandalism of the shoe tree and surrounding area. The owner of the land holding the shoe tree, Maxine Archibald, tells stories of the attempted destruction of the tree. People have tried to cut and burn down both trees. People tear down any signs Maxine tries to put up, and, if they cannot tear it down, they are quick to spray paint it and many other surrounding objects. But despite this, Maxine says, “That’s just how it is (Archibald).” The people in the community think the vandals have nothing better to do, and it could not be stopped anyway. So, they ignore it. This consistent vandalism should not be ignored. This attitude is furthered by the ignoring of rural crime by the majority of criminologists themselves. The problems with this constant vandalism are greater than they may seem. Fixing road signs, mailboxes, and buildings over and over quickly becomes costly. Vandalism in a rural community is not just a problem; it is a problem that should and can be addressed.
Proving that different communities view vandalism differently, Spelman showed some interesting data from his study on incivilities and how people view them (Spelman 74). Vandalism was one of the only incivilities that varied neighborhood to neighborhood on how severe people viewed it (Spelman 74). I take this as proof that people in urban neighborhoods view vandalism as much more of a problem than people in rural communities. I grew up in a rural area, and I have seen examples of this my entire life. If a mailbox gets vandalized, it is replaced without a word. Nothing is said and nothing is done. It is because people in these communities do not view it as a severe problem. Everyone believes that is how it has always been and always will be.
Not only does the rural community fail to see vandalism as a problem, but the science of criminology, in general, views rural crime as less important than urban crime or ignore the rural aspect all together (Donnermeyer 3). One reason for this is the rural stereotype. In the article, “Rural Crime: Roots and Restoration,” Donnermeyer discusses how rural crime began to lose focus and uses a study of three rural communities to prove why there is crime there and why it needs to be studied along with urban communities. Donnermeyer states,
Throughout most of the twentieth century rural crime ranked among the least studied phenomena in criminology…If rural was considered at all, it was as a convenient ‘ideal type’ contrasted with the criminogenic conditions assumed to exist exclusively in urban locations. Rural crime was rarely examined, either comparatively with urban crime or as a subject worthy of investigation in its own right (Donnermeyer 3).
So, over time, the stereotype worsened and rural crime was regarded as something to be disregarded (Donnermeyer 5). And of course, all this lead to the universal assumption that all rural areas have less crime and have less variation in crime (Donnermeyer 5). The idea that rural crime is “ideal” is ridiculous. I have grown up in a rural town, and it is far from perfect.
The biggest movement against the focus on rural vandalism is the fact that property crime is a higher percentage in Urban areas; therefore, people say it is a more relevant area to focus on. Many influential sociologists, like Sorokin, Zimmerman, Galpin, and Witrth, have found that rural crime was consistently lower than urban crime. This cannot be argued. For example, in 2002, Urban property crime was at nineteen percent and rural property crime was at eleven percent (Rural Households More Crime-Free). The problem with relying on these studies is that they are all based on official arrest rates (Donnermeyer 3). None of them take into account how the records were taken. These statistics are compiled by police organizations located in urban areas of the states. The most important problem with the compilation of this data is that rural areas consistently have much fewer criminal justice resources. So, the gap in crime rate could merely represent the lack of policing services in rural communities (Donnermeyer 4).
Donnermeyer did a study of rural crime compared to urban crime using the Uniform Crime Report which is based on police reported crime. From 1995 to 2005 Urban areas saw a twenty-eight point seven percent decrease, while rural areas saw only an eight percent decrease (Donnermeyer 6). While modern technology and information are surely attributing to the decrease in crime in both areas, I do not mean to say all is well, crime rates are going down. I understand this information to mean that the gap is closing between rural and urban crime rates. A couple factors could be contributing to this fact. The first is that the undeniable attention to urban crime payed off, and all the work on it has led to the large decrease. From the rural area’s point of view, it may be decreasing at a slower rate because as the rural communities continue to develop and grow, they receive more criminal justice resources. In turn more crime is actually reported. But, how does all this relate to rural Crawford County?
The shoe tree is at the heart of the county. It is a large oak tree, overflowing with shoes. Phyllis Thomas dedicates a few paragraphs of her book, Off the Beaten Path Indiana to this magnificent tree. At one point Thomas then discusses the few things the people of Milltown know, or think they know about the tree. The first being the date and way it was started. They narrowed it down to the timeframe of the early 1960’s. The people like to believe it was started by someone who had an old pair of shoes that had been through too many good things to be simply thrown in the trash. So this person decided to put the shoes on display high in the tree. Thomas states,
Although old shoes hang from many places these days, the folks in Milltown, who refer to this tree as the towns “branch office,” will tell you that their shoe tree is the original. In fact, they claim, they’ve even copyrighted it (Thomas 184).
 |
| The log by the shoe tree that someone spraypainted. |
The early 1960’s agrees with Maxine in that she says the tree is at least fifty years old. I know now that this creation story is untrue; the boy scouts were just messing around and throwing shoes in a tree (Archibald). But, this tree obviously means a lot to this small town, and the people are very proud to claim it. The tree is in fact copyrighted (Archibald). Maxine’s brother applied for it and was approved. Its official copyright name is “Indiana Shoe Tree (Archibald).” There are no signs to get one there and no historical marker at the site. It is only the tree. As I stated before, there are no signs because of vandalism. Maxine has tried to put up signs, but they are vandalized immediately (Archibald). When one visits the shoe tree, the magnitude and oddness of the tree overshadows the problems at first, but then one sees the spray painted log on the ground beside the tree that reads “Foo hearts Sara.” This takes away from the tree, and makes one remember the spray painted street sign visible when one first drove up and the missing, presumably stolen, road sign one sees on the drive there. Then, with vandalism on the mind, images of the spray painted and rundown buildings in the town of Milltown come to mind. Maxine also tells stories of how people have tried multiple times to cut down and burn down the original shoe tree (Archibald). They failed though and only lighting could bring it down, but the loss of the sole tourist attraction and added revenue is a huge problem.
 |
| This is a sign like one that Maxine tried to put up but of course that was vandalized |
So, there is vandalism, but why is vandalism such a problem? The first reason is that vandalism is still a crime (Frequently Asked Questions). So, it should not be tolerated and ignored like it is. The second reason is that it makes the county look bad. It makes the shoe tree, the county’s one and only tourist attraction, much less appealing. The third reason is that “vandalism creates fear of crime.” If people feel that one type of crime is tolerated, than they come to the logical conclusion of what else is tolerated? The fourth reason is that vandalism follows what is known as the “’broken wings theory.’” This says that once vandalism is not dealt with and removed, it, in itself causes more vandalism, worsening the problem (Frequently Asked Questions).
In the article, “Rural Crime Prevention: Vandalism,” Gary Holland starts by discussing a history of vandalism(Holland 1). Then he leads into attitudes people take towards vandalism. There is one that seems to be the relevant to Crawford County. People sometimes look at it as the vandalism will punish the vandal itself and nothing more needs to be done. This is simply untrue, and punishes everyone but the vandal. He goes on to state what attitudes should be taken toward vandalism. He says,
Realization that vandalism can be permanently reduced through implementation of several strategies is a vital step in reaching that goal. The citizens and government officials of a community must then evaluate the types of vandalism prevalent in the area and consider possible steps to be taken (Holland 1).
As Holland states the key to reducing vandalism in a rural community comes from a variety of solutions. These solutions must be specifically tailored per county by the government to fit the specific needs of the community. Different types of vandalism occur in different types of communities (Holland 1). The vandalism most prevalent in this county would be spray painting public property, stealing signs, and mailbox bashing. The strategy implemented needs to focus on these areas.
A few strategies that Holland proposes are monitoring public property, using building designs that hurt vandalism, sticking to the scheduling of publics facilities, using school buildings for more than school, and developing youth programs (Holland 2). Monitoring public property means to look for vandalism, then fix it when it is found. This prevents a hot spot from being created, and prevents more vandalism from occurring. The next strategy is to inhibit vandalism through the design of buildings. One example is dark paint to make spray painting less visible and therefore make it pointless. Since buildings that look abandoned are at high risk, buildings should be kept up. Public facilities should be open as scheduled to prevent hostility (Holland 2). Crawford County in particular should first get public facilities as they currently have very few. The teenagers in Crawford County need more activities to keep them occupied. School buildings can be used at night for things like 4-h to give vandals of school buildings a higher risk (Holland 2). Developing youth programs is the most important strategy for Crawford County. Again, the teenagers and young adults need anything to do besides go out and vandalize the town. Studies prove that the main reason teenagers vandalize is the feeling of being alienated from the community (Holland 2). Crawford County is lacking in supplemental programs of any kind, and that shows with the large amount of vandalism.
In conclusion, vandalism and crime in rural areas is not something to overlook, especially in Crawford County. The stereotype of rural communitites being the “ideal” criminality situation is false. Everyone must get involved to stop vandalism. The government cannot do it alone, and one person cannot do it alone. The main focus for everyone should be giving teenagers and young adults an outlet. They need something to do. There needs to be a lot more youth programs with much more variety. Vandalism can never be truly stopped, but it can be greatly reduced with the right strategy.
Works Cited
Archibald, Maxine. Personal Interview. 7 July 2011.
Donnermeyer, J. 2007. “Rural Crime: Roots and Restoration.” Retrieved from www.ruralfutures.une.edu.au
“Frequently Asked Questions.” Retrieved from www.chilterndistrict.gov.uk
N.A. (n.d). "Rural households more crime-free." USA Today. Retrieved from EBSCOhost..
Photograph. "Smashed Mailbox." www.steelmailboxes.com. "Grisly Tales of Mailbox Bashing." web.
Photograph. www.snafu-ed.blogspot.com. "Anti-Vandalism Protestor Arrested for Vandalism." web.
Spelman, William. "Optimal Targeting of Incivility-Reduction Strategies." Journal of Quantitative Criminology 20.1 (2004): 63-88. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 11 July 2011.
Thomas, Phyllis. Off the Beaten Path Indiana. 9th ed. Guilford: Globe Pequot, 2007. Print.
