Other people have discussed and refuted your various arguments. I want to tackle something else.
You are dismissing elements of the case as if they aren't important.
> Lets break it down logically.
Logic dictates that you look at the case at hand, not at all the possible permutations.
It's not as if you can say simply that killing someone is a crime and deserves X punishment, regardless of the details, and driving over the speed limit isn't an instant ticket if seen by a cop.
So, then you ask:
> why is chalk different than spraypaint in the eyes of the law?
First, because they are different. They aren't the same. Not all cases of vandalism are the same, and they shouldn't be treated the same.
We see what happens in cases like that when people use zero-tolerance as an excuse to come down hard on someone who was clearly not doing anything harmful.
> What if there is no hose access to the sidewalk in an area where there is no rain for weeks at a time?
And what if it was raining at the time? The person drawing while the rain immediately washed it away. One could argue then that the act of vandalism still occurred in both cases. One just happened to happen while it rained.
You are dismissing elements of the case as if they aren't important.
> Lets break it down logically.
Logic dictates that you look at the case at hand, not at all the possible permutations.
It's not as if you can say simply that killing someone is a crime and deserves X punishment, regardless of the details, and driving over the speed limit isn't an instant ticket if seen by a cop.
So, then you ask:
> why is chalk different than spraypaint in the eyes of the law?
First, because they are different. They aren't the same. Not all cases of vandalism are the same, and they shouldn't be treated the same.
We see what happens in cases like that when people use zero-tolerance as an excuse to come down hard on someone who was clearly not doing anything harmful.
> What if there is no hose access to the sidewalk in an area where there is no rain for weeks at a time?
And what if it was raining at the time? The person drawing while the rain immediately washed it away. One could argue then that the act of vandalism still occurred in both cases. One just happened to happen while it rained.