Vandalism

Of course there is. The land is still owned by someone, and there are neighboring properties which are affected by a nearby building's vandalism and disrepair.

Yes.

1. The more you damage structurally, the more they will have to fix (if and when someone decides to restore and renovate the building for whatever reason).
2. Have you never heard of asbestos and other dangerously outdated and illegal construction material? You will likely run into that when you go rampaging through abandoned buildings. You (and other people interacting with and around the building) will be exposed to many of these hazardous materials by causing further damage to the structure.

You just might end up getting a well deserved Darwin Award for messing around with such things. Your loss.
3. Many buildings are abandoned for many reasons: Good luck exposing yourself to remaining chemical products and by products that have accumulated in the building's past industrial lives.

But what if it's a complete wreck and beyond repair and it's isolated from other buildings? surely that can't be doing any harm?

You just want people to say your criminal behaviour is OK. It's not.

Try telling that to a judge or jury.

Spoiler Alert: it won't make a damned bit of difference to them.

I'm going to safely assume that you don't have an engineering degree ... or ANY degree at all.

I don't have a degree - and don't see any connection.
Why say "my" criminal damage? I never mentioned me doing anything. But there were 3 kids - I think in Indiana - who smashed things in a derelict building recently and got a year in custody - it seeks a bit over the top, as no-one was hurt.

Except people's livelihoods were hurt, and their property values went down.

You wouldn't.

Vandalism is a crime and it doesn't matter one jot whether the property has been abandoned.

The three individuals who committed the crime earned their punishment. They can also serve as warnings to future twits who think it'll be a grand idea to wreck things.

I'm not saying what they did was right, but there was nobody being injured as you say and the property was already half-wrecked as I understand, so I can't see how property would have gone down.

I completely concur with what you were alluding to viz. that the sentence was out of all proportion to the crime.

And you should be burned at the stake for even daring to ask this question, or so it would seem.

I hope and believe your last comment was sarcasm and your first point was to be taken at face value. I'm not condoning it, but it seems out of proportion considering some kids in gangs have killed someone and served strangely light sentences.

Goof bucket? What are you babbling on about? No one mentioned, let alone implied a real world case including possible real world sentence and punishment.

You can't add context to something that has no context (while literally not having any specific details to you own ubervague alleged context).

Btw, saying that vandalism does no harm is very different from saying that the sentencing of two kids for vandalism seems unduly harsh. If the OP had expressed himself in those terms he might have got a more sympathetic response.

I was babbling on about what Airaux noted:



Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate.
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer’s lease hath all too short a date.
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimmed;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance, or nature’s changing course, untrimmed;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade,
Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow’st,
Nor shall death brag thou wand’rest in his shade,
When in eternal lines to Time thou grow’st.
So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.