Are tattoos prejudicial?

[William Joyce]

The FACT he is a skinhead is relevant all by itself as are the tattoos.

How is this relevant.

The guard wouldn't be less dead if a hispanic nun was accused.

Being a skinhead is the source of WHY he was in prison to begin with. His beliefs on race and people are the most likeley source of why he murdered the Guard. HE chose FREELY to presnet those Tattoos as WHO he is by putting them WHERE they are. A jury has every right and need to see who this person is and how he thinks.

Brother, you're making the case for the defense as you speak. First, how do you know that his being a skinhead (or whatever) was "the source" of his imprisonment? Second, you declare

A) that he did, in fact, kill the guard and
B) that you know his being a "skinhead" was why he did it.

You have your assumptions and conclusions stacked so high, one wonders why you're even agreeing to a trial for the man!

I get that everyone's excited about him being stuck with controversial marking that he did, in fact, get voluntarily. I don't know how I'd rule on the tattoo coverings if I were a judge.

But there is something in the law called "prejudice", and it's not (necessarily) about race. It means "making a decision based on the wrong information." It's not necessarily bad human reasoning, but it's disfavored by the law. And sometimes it's not that it's untrue... it's that it's TOO true. It's why they don't allow prosecutors to say "Defendant X has been convicted of this same crime three times before." The fear is that jurors will sloppily say, "well, then, he must be guilty of this fourth one, too." Problem is, we don't charge people with the crime of "being a bad person", we charge them with a specific act. We want jurors to focus on the evidence that makes it more or less likely he committed that particular act. And yes, it's a little elitist, because the law is essentially saying it doesn't fully trust jurors to be mature.

 

[William Joyce]

So here's ol' Curtis:

Turns out, Curtis was in prison for forgery, burglary and escape. The prison guard he killed was a 60-year-old white man.

Curtis has tattoos covering his entire head, and EARS.

I'm thinking that white advocacy or refined ideological ruminations on racial separation are NOT Curtis' forte. More likely, he's just an extremely fucked up criminal who knows that the quickest way to shock everyone is to put Nazi tattoos on his head, a la Charles Manson. Fucked up, yes. Pro-white, no.

Anyway, some stage make-up ought to do the trick. I would not, as a taxpayer, support having to foot the bill for laser removal. Curtis should have to pay for that by his little self.

Which he should be doing from prison, because I don't think the prosecution will lack for evidence.

And maybe he'll need them for prison -- protection, you know. Anyway, for killing a white guard, his biggest fans these days are probably the strutting, muscle-bound black and Hispanic inmates of Utah.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

How is this relevant.

The guard wouldn't be less dead if a hispanic nun was accused.

Being a skinhead is the source of WHY he was in prison to begin with. His beliefs on race and people are the most likeley source of why he murdered the Guard. HE chose FREELY to presnet those Tattoos as WHO he is by putting them WHERE they are. A jury has every right and need to see who this person is and how he thinks.

Brother, you're making the case for the defense as you speak. First, how do you know that his being a skinhead (or whatever) was "the source" of his imprisonment? Second, you declare

A) that he did, in fact, kill the guard and
B) that you know his being a "skinhead" was why he did it.

You have your assumptions and conclusions stacked so high, one wonders why you're even agreeing to a trial for the man!

I get that everyone's excited about him being stuck with controversial marking that he did, in fact, get voluntarily. I don't know how I'd rule on the tattoo coverings if I were a judge.

But there is something in the law called "prejudice", and it's not (necessarily) about race. It means "making a decision based on the wrong information." It's not necessarily bad human reasoning, but it's disfavored by the law. And sometimes it's not that it's untrue... it's that it's TOO true. It's why they don't allow prosecutors to say "Defendant X has been convicted of this same crime three times before." The fear is that jurors will sloppily say, "well, then, he must be guilty of this fourth one, too." Problem is, we don't charge people with the crime of "being a bad person", we charge them with a specific act. We want jurors to focus on the evidence that makes it more or less likely he committed that particular act. And yes, it's a little elitist, because the law is essentially saying it doesn't fully trust jurors to be mature.

The board white Supremacist giving me advice on this thread? How cute.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes, they are. In this case, the defendant killed a prison guard. I didn't catch the racial makeup of the situation, which might or might not be relevant. If the prison guard was black, then skinhead tattoos might well be relevant and probably the defense should not be allowed to cover them. On the other hand, if the prison guard was white, then there would appear to be little or no relevance to skinhead tattoos, since the killing would not appear to be racially motivated.

In any call such as this, the judge is the final arbiter on the question. He/she must balance the probative value of the evidence against any prejudical effect and make a decision on that basis.

Being white is not a protection and in fact can be the reason they kill you. One for not being white enough, 2 for not keeping the line pure, 3 for aiding none whites, the list goes on and on. A prison guard would be on the list because thay have to treat all inmates the same regardless of color.

The FACT he is a skinhead is relevant all by itself as are the tattoos.

Your comments are well taken. I have handled half a dozen hate crimes involving skinheads, but they all involved either inter-racial crimes or attacks on homosexuals. The factors you mention here are also valid.

However, I am sure the judge in this particular case was aware of all relevant factors and took them into consideration in making the ruling to exclude the tattoos.

Once again, whether his being a skinhead is relevant or not would depend upon all of the factors of the case with probably the most important being the motivation for the killing. If it was hate inspired or "skinhead related," that is one thing. If he killed the guard simply because he didn't like the guard, that is quite another.

Doesn't the fact he is a skinhead have an impact on the character of the defendant? Is that not enough to bring that into the courtroom as establishing this man's character to the jury? I honestly do not know so I am looking for the legal answer to this.

 

[kwc57]

One should never do anything permanent to their body that they would be ashamed of. If he was stupid enough to get them, he should be proud enough to wear them. Afterall, they are a statement about who he is. Life's a bitch that way.

Absurd: "If he was stupid enough to get them, he should be proud enough to wear them?"

WTF is that supposed to mean?

Was he supposed to know when he got tatoos that he would be accused of murder in the future?

It means what it says. The fucking moron covered his body in tatoos. People get tatoos to make a statement about who they are, how they feel about themselves and how they want others to see them. When he acts out on being the badass he sees himself to be, he all of a sudden wants to give a false impression of who he is to jurors making a decision on his actions. Tough shit. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. He's a coward.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes. Course it was their choice to get them. So they have to deal with the consequences.

 

[Samson]

Yes. Course it was their choice to get them. So they have to deal with the consequences.

If it was their choice to kill a 60 yo guard, then they have to deal with the consequences (death sentence?).

If it was their choice to tatoo 99% of their face, then there are no legal consequences.

 

[Father Time]

Yes. Course it was their choice to get them. So they have to deal with the consequences.

There is nothing illegal about getting tattoos.

And a jury giving someone a less than fair trial or a tougher sentence based solely on their tattoos is something that should be avoided.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think most of you are missing the grater point here and that is the defendant needs to be accused on EVIDENCE and not look. No matter what he looks like it does not count as evidence. If he is a known skinhead I believe that fact can be brought in. Would you prefer that the jury get a clear look and then wrongfully convict him because he 'looks like a killer.' Don't forget, that also means that the guilty party would get off.


I think this begs the bigger question as well. Do you think the jury should even be able to see the defendant at all. After all, there will always be some prejudicial thinking in some of the jurors be that you are black or white, fat or skinny or muscular, Arabic or Chinese.

I actually do not have a problem with the tattoos being covered up but I also don't have a problem with the prosecution using his affiliation with the skinheads as evidence.

Jury not being able to see the defendant?

I could see several problems with that.

For one if a witness has a description of the criminal the jury should be able to see how well the defendent matches the description.

It is a philosophical question regardless but I think it would be worth exploring here on the board. I do not believe that an ID would require that the defendant be seen. A person taking the stand and positively IDing the defendant should be enough. There is no way that the description can be considered anyway unless you are reading it out of a police report. The witness is, after all, looking right at the defendant and could say anything. A positive ID on the stand should be enough. There needs to be more than just that.

 

[chanel]

The tats are on his face, neck, and head. Should he wear a mask? Or should the taxpayers be responsible for laser removal? Is it prejudicial to know that the guy is a PRISONER or should they say he just happened to be near his victim? Common sense has to play some role in this.

How much money should be spent on the defense of someone who will most likely never leave jail anyway?

 

[chanel]

 

[Samson]

The tats are on his face, neck, and head. Should he wear a mask? Or should the taxpayers be responsible for laser removal? Is it prejudicial to know that the guy is a PRISONER or should they say he just happened to be near his victim? Common sense has to play some role in this.

How much money should be spent on the defense of someone who will most likely never leave jail anyway?

Why not simply allow the Defense Lawyer to resolve the problem?

 

[kwc57]

The tats are on his face, neck, and head. Should he wear a mask? Or should the taxpayers be responsible for laser removal? Is it prejudicial to know that the guy is a PRISONER or should they say he just happened to be near his victim? Common sense has to play some role in this.

How much money should be spent on the defense of someone who will most likely never leave jail anyway?

Why not simply allow the Defense Lawyer to resolve the problem?

How? Put clown makeup on him? I'd send a clown to jail way ahead of a skinhead and I think skinheads are pond scum.

Remember John Wayne Gacy?

View attachment 10544

 

[George Costanza]

Is it prejudicial to know that the guy is a PRISONER or should they say he just happened to be near his victim?

It is HIGHLY prejudicial for the jury to know that the defendant is in custody. Why? Because it causes juries to think that, because he is in custody, he is guilty.

Our criminal justice system has LONG recognized this. If a judge were to conduct a trial with the defendant in jail blues and restraints (or just in jail blues), it would be reversible error unless the defendant expressly waived his right to appear in civilian clothes (which sometimes happens, almost always due to a tactical decision by the defense).

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yesterday son and I went to the local Quikemart and were a tad uncomfortable when we started to read the tats on the Illustrated Man online right in front of us, (6'2 about 240, bald, but with tats on his head). He had a large German Iron Cross and an "SS" along with other marking that I think I saw on the HBO show "OZ"

 

[AquaAthena]

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Attorneys for a prison inmate accused of killing a guard while escaping from a Salt Lake City medical center are seeking to cover his neo-Nazi tattoos during his trial.

The attorneys say they want the tattoos on Curtis Michael Allgier's face, head, neck and hands covered up to ensure he gets a fair trial. The tattoos also include swastikas and the words "Skin Head" written across his forehead.

The 30-year-old Allgier is charged with capital murder for allegedly shooting 60-year-old Stephen Anderson in June 2007 after Anderson unshackled Allgier for an MRI scan.

FOXNews.com - Lawyers for prisoner accused of killing guard seek to cover neo-Nazi tattoos during Utah trial

"The attorneys say they want the tattoos on Curtis Michael Allgier's face, head, neck and hands covered up to ensure he gets a fair trial."

Lol, yes, by any and all means, hide the truth from the jurors....

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Attorneys for a prison inmate accused of killing a guard while escaping from a Salt Lake City medical center are seeking to cover his neo-Nazi tattoos during his trial.

The attorneys say they want the tattoos on Curtis Michael Allgier's face, head, neck and hands covered up to ensure he gets a fair trial. The tattoos also include swastikas and the words "Skin Head" written across his forehead.

The 30-year-old Allgier is charged with capital murder for allegedly shooting 60-year-old Stephen Anderson in June 2007 after Anderson unshackled Allgier for an MRI scan.

FOXNews.com - Lawyers for prisoner accused of killing guard seek to cover neo-Nazi tattoos during Utah trial

Late in life to find out acts have consequences

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Looks like he's ignoring his Miranda warnings, no?

He has self-incrimination written all over himself, no?

Are those tats an Unconstitutional violation of his 5th Amendment rights?

 

[Father Time]

Looks like he's ignoring his Miranda warnings, no?

He has self-incrimination written all over himself, no?

Are those tats an Unconstitutional violation of his 5th Amendment rights?

Which of those tattoos say "I killed that guard"?

None of those tattoos are evidence he killed the guard.

 

[boedicca]

The defense attorneys are in a tough spot. It's pretty typical for a defendant to be cleaned and suited up to appear more conventional during the trial. The tattoos make it more difficult for them to make their case - but if the moron wants to be a walking billboard for his bigotry and hate, so be it.