Proportionate Sentence?

[ChillDoubt]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20444436

Wouldn't community service have been a better idea than added expense to the taxpayer?
And I'm frankly amazed that Rothko's paintings sell for such an amount, but then what some deem odd or ordinary others deem 'art'.

[Canary42]

Should have received a commendation !

2 years gaol is barbaric.

[sp1814]

Hang on - the painting is worth £50million!!!!

Therefore surely the sentence is entirely appropriate.

If you walked into an motor museum and poured paint stripper over every car you saw...don't you think you would be deserving of a prison sentence?

This is a £50million painting...whether you think it's worth that isn't really the point - that's what the market says it's worth.

I'm glad he got a custodial sentence.

Big berk.
However,

[sherrardk]

It's worth between £5 million and £9 million actually.

[jake-the-peg]

Well the repair is estimated at 20 months so there's a certain proportionality in the sentence from that respect!

Valdalising a Wahol to get 15 minutes of fame would have been more ironic!

If he'd not got a custodial sentence I think he'd have been straight out capitalising on his notoriety.

This way by the time he's out the news media will have lost interest

[Snafu03]

who's rothko? if he's still alive he just just paint it again.

[Snafu03]

*can* just paint it again.

[New Judge]

No, not disproportionate at all.

Mr Umaniec planned and deliberately caused damage to the tune of about £200,000 to an item valued at £5m. He did so for some obscure and unfathomable reason. Among the aggravating features were that his actions were intentional; his motivation (which seemed to be driven by some sort of envy or hatred of the artist); it was pre-planned; it caused extensive damage which will be costly to repair and it was committed in a place of public amenity.

The maximum sentence for the offence is ten years. Allowing for his one third discount for a guilty plea he was sentenced to well under a half of the maximum.

I cannot fathom how such a value is placed upon works of art like this. But the neither the value nor the cost of repair was disputed.

[emmie]

no i don't believe it was, community service in a hospital, do the menial stuff for a similar period would be much more beneficial. I don't care for Rothko's work, however what he did was severe enough i guess for a custodial sentence, but not one i think he should have received.

[ChillDoubt]

For those who believe the sentence to be proportionate in relation to cost and worth, what about this one?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20338042

[emmie]

i think he should have gone to jail for a lot longer, i see this as somewhat different, but you know we aren't in the judiciary, so don't have any input other than opinions.

[ChillDoubt]

Also, for those quoting a price, the gallery themselves state there is no price for the painting, it's just valued at over £5,000 for the purposes of cost relation to the offence(figure quoted in the link), not £5 million.

[sp1814]

The Guardian says it's worth £50 million:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/oct/10/polish-man-mark-rothko-painting

I'm now thinking it's probably a typo on their part, because I've checked other sources who all agree that it's worth between £5million and £9million.

[ChillDoubt]

Masterpiece?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untitled_%28Black_on_Grey%29

Or pretentious twaddle in the write-up, added to dupe art lover's into parting with astronomically ridiculous amounts of money?

[EcclesCake]

Or even more cynically, the higher the value of the painting the more the gallery would pay for insurance at the opening of the exhibition.

The exhibition proves successful and much interest is expressed in Rothko's work, consequently the value increases......

Then a miscreant comes along and addshis own form of 'art' to Rothko's. And the value is reassessed.

I wonder if the value of this piece is being calculated around what collectors are willing to pay for this highly publicised work?????

[mushroom25]

from the yelllowism manifesto:-

"Yellowism can be presented only in the special yellowistic chambers. Yellowistic chamber is a closed room with yellow walls that is not an art gallery and because of its nature, cannot exist or be presented in an art gallery"

so - yellowism is the schroedinger's cat of art.... or maybe non-art.

or are the founders of yellowism just barking?

[emmie]

barking or meowing, who knows.

[ludwig]

The sentence seems about right. Don't forget he'll be out in under a year.

[New Judge]

“…it's just valued at over £5,000 for the purposes of cost relation to the offence”

I think I know what you mean, ChillDoubt, but just in case there is any confusion:

The figure of £5k is used because when dealing with the offence of Criminal Damage offences involving over £5k are normally dealt with in the Crown Court . There is certainly no doubt that the “work of art” has a value of several millions and the gallery is considering spending about £200k on restoration (though to my mind it would not cost that much to just slap a bit of red paint over the offending graffitti.). It seems to me that one pretentious berk has spoiled the work of another pretentious berk.

[ChillDoubt]

Can't argue with that assessment New Judge.

[jno]

the Guardian's initial story came from the Press Association, who seem to have got it wrong. Their own story says £5m.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/dec/13/mark-rothko-vandal-jailed?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

It will always be possible to find two similar crimes punished with dissimilar severity; that's how it is in a big country where the judges aren't robots. But I agree with New Judge, this seems about right.