Law and justice are not always the same. When they aren't, destroying the law may be the first step toward changing it

Our attorney general (I know, I know, it's the American term, but Minister of Justice sounds too much like something out of a totalitarian vision of the future) Beatrice Ask wants to use manacles with positioning capabilities to keep track of underage criminals. The Swedish criminal justice system is already using similar manacles for adult criminals.

Back when I was in college, I had a period when I was living at home and studying over the Internet at a college in Sundsvall. I had a number of get-togethers there with the class, and being a poor student and since the school was 520 kilometers away, I had to be creative in finding travel solutions. There was a local trucking company that had a route from my home town to Sundsvall, and I could ride along free of charge, if only the drivers approved. And they did. It's a lonely job, driving a big-rig during five hours in the middle of the night.

One of the drivers had been convicted of assault, beating up a guy when he was drunk, and since he had no priors he didn't go to prison. Instead he wore a manacle around his ankle that kept track of his movements. He was allowed to be at work and at home and drive his truck to Sundsvall and back. Nothing else.

To me, this is a superior form of punishment/treatment. The guy had an alcohol problem, which was treated with Antabus, he got counseling to deal with anger management issues that it seemed like he really didn't have, and then the manacle to make sure he didn't get into trouble.

And now Ask wants to put manacles on underage criminals too. Right on, I say. A combination of therapy and keeping them away from whatever friends etc that are a bad influence sounds like the right way to go.

Of course, there are people opposing this idea, and not surprisingly from the other end of the political spectrum. Former Attorney General Thomas Bodström said (paraphrased and translated) “Beatrice Ask must realize that a manacle is an alternative to prison, and we don't put children in prison.”

But that there is the point, isn't it? This isn't putting children in prison. They can still go to school or work or whatever. And yes, I realize that treatment is needed too, as well as attention from child protective services or something similar to sort out conditions in the home, but just going with treatment is too soft, to me. Prison can turn into a downward spiral into further criminal activities. Using a manacle may seem like the middle ground, something you go for when the others seem to extreme, to either side. To me, though, it sounds like a real solution to a real problem.

Or, you know, you can just go with an exploding collar.

Rutger wasn't sure the collar went with the color of his eyes

The purpose of art is the gradual, lifelong construction of a state of wonder and serenity

If you haven't lived under a rock for the past couple of weeks, you're bound to have seen or read something about a certain kind of creek that Sweden's premier art school is up without a paddle.

The question has been, can an artist break the law and get it away with calling it art?

I think this question is phrased incorrectly. You can get away with calling anything art, if you call yourself an artist. Doesn't mean I have to like it or acknowledge it or even care, but you can still call it art. However, doing something criminal under the guise of art is not OK. In fact, it's downright despicable. And the fact that it's done while studying at a school receiving funds from the government pisses me off to no end.

I agree with people saying that all students at that place shouldn't be punished because of the missteps of a few, but the school needs to take the matter seriously, and demand more of their students. “Break the law and you're out. Break the law and we'll report you.”

My view on art (and I'm leaving music out here), and understanding of art, is fairly low-grade. I couldn't tell you who did what painting (apart from the really known ones and a few I really like) and I know jack about different periods or schools of art. Really, no idea. I want art to blow my mind, open my third eye, catapult my mind off in unexpected directions.

Most art, to me, is pretentious crap. Complete and utter crap. And many artists I have met are, as well. Pretentious crap, that is. Up on a high horse, in a headspace I can't even begin to fathom. Yes, I am also on a high horse occasionally (like now) but that doesn't mean that I look with disdain at those that can't understand what I try to achieve creatively. Something I feel that many artists do. If I don't get it, I'm a lesser person.

Well, fuck that. I consider myself a better person since I know the difference between yours and mine, between vandalism and art. Yes, I get the point of using art as a provocation, as means to start a discussion. But that still doesn't make it OK to break the law or take up the time of law enforcement or the health care system. Learn some respect, and grow the fuck up.

I will probably be upset about this quite a long time. Too long, probably, but that's how I'm wired. And I needed to get this out of my system. Next I'll probably write a short story about some artist that suffers a horrible fate. Vent, vent, vent.