Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.
True they don't. Which begs the question, why cover them up?
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.
True they don't. Which begs the question, why cover them up?
Which of those tattoos say "I killed that guard"?
None of those tattoos are evidence he killed the guard.
True they don't. Which begs the question, why cover them up?
Because it may give the jury an unfair bias against him.
Which of those tattoos say "I killed that guard"?
None of those tattoos are evidence he killed the guard.
True they don't. Which begs the question, why cover them up?
Father Time speaks truth.
Surely you see that, don't you? You are a juror, about to decide guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant charged with writing a bad check. The defenant has skinhead tattoos completely covering his face and head - similar to the guy in the pic here.
Your thought process: "I don't know whether this guy wrote the bad check based on the evidence in this case, but I HATE skinheads. If this jerk is a skinhead, then he MUST be guilty."
If you don't see a problem with a vote for guilty on that basis, then there has to be something wrong somewhere.
True they don't. Which begs the question, why cover them up?
Father Time speaks truth.
Surely you see that, don't you? You are a juror, about to decide guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant charged with writing a bad check. The defenant has skinhead tattoos completely covering his face and head - similar to the guy in the pic here.
Your thought process: "I don't know whether this guy wrote the bad check based on the evidence in this case, but I HATE skinheads. If this jerk is a skinhead, then he MUST be guilty."
If you don't see a problem with a vote for guilty on that basis, then there has to be something wrong somewhere.
I've been a juror. Juries are given extremely explicit instructions by the judge on what they can and cannot base their decision on. The case I was a jury foreman for was an age descrimination suit against a company. The truth of the matter was that the guy knew about an affair between two people in management and they knew he knew and they were afraid he'd talk, so they fired him. Our state is an "at will" state where an employee can be fired for any reason an employer wants except for federal rights such as age, religion, gender, etc. So his lawyer brought the case as an age descrimination suit. The whole jury knew the guy had been royally fucked over, but not because he was approaching 60. We wanted to find in his favor, but we simply couldn't given the instructions from the judge on what we could base our decision on. It sucked, but we made the "right" choice. You'd be surprised how many people will step up and do the "right" thing in a jury situation. If a judge says you can't take the tatoos into consideration for determining his guilt for murder, you can't.......and most Americans won't. At least that has been my personal experience.
Will his tatts color the juror's opinion of him? Sure. But then he got them to color people's opinions of him, didn't he?
True they don't. Which begs the question, why cover them up?
Because it may give the jury an unfair bias against him.
Why would they have an unfair bias against him?
Father Time speaks truth.
Surely you see that, don't you? You are a juror, about to decide guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant charged with writing a bad check. The defenant has skinhead tattoos completely covering his face and head - similar to the guy in the pic here.
Your thought process: "I don't know whether this guy wrote the bad check based on the evidence in this case, but I HATE skinheads. If this jerk is a skinhead, then he MUST be guilty."
If you don't see a problem with a vote for guilty on that basis, then there has to be something wrong somewhere.
I've been a juror. Juries are given extremely explicit instructions by the judge on what they can and cannot base their decision on. The case I was a jury foreman for was an age descrimination suit against a company. The truth of the matter was that the guy knew about an affair between two people in management and they knew he knew and they were afraid he'd talk, so they fired him. Our state is an "at will" state where an employee can be fired for any reason an employer wants except for federal rights such as age, religion, gender, etc. So his lawyer brought the case as an age descrimination suit. The whole jury knew the guy had been royally fucked over, but not because he was approaching 60. We wanted to find in his favor, but we simply couldn't given the instructions from the judge on what we could base our decision on. It sucked, but we made the "right" choice. You'd be surprised how many people will step up and do the "right" thing in a jury situation. If a judge says you can't take the tatoos into consideration for determining his guilt for murder, you can't.......and most Americans won't. At least that has been my personal experience.
Will his tatts color the juror's opinion of him? Sure. But then he got them to color people's opinions of him, didn't he?
All well and good - but why set the jury up for having to resist the impulse to be biased against a defendant when it is much easier to simply remove the source of the bias to begin with?
Sounds to me like, in the tat case here, you would prefer that the jury BE biased.
Because it may give the jury an unfair bias against him.
Why would they have an unfair bias against him?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...38-are-tattoos-prejudicial-4.html#post2393517
Why would they have an unfair bias against him?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...38-are-tattoos-prejudicial-4.html#post2393517
I already read your answer. I want father time to answer why.
I've been a juror. Juries are given extremely explicit instructions by the judge on what they can and cannot base their decision on. The case I was a jury foreman for was an age descrimination suit against a company. The truth of the matter was that the guy knew about an affair between two people in management and they knew he knew and they were afraid he'd talk, so they fired him. Our state is an "at will" state where an employee can be fired for any reason an employer wants except for federal rights such as age, religion, gender, etc. So his lawyer brought the case as an age descrimination suit. The whole jury knew the guy had been royally fucked over, but not because he was approaching 60. We wanted to find in his favor, but we simply couldn't given the instructions from the judge on what we could base our decision on. It sucked, but we made the "right" choice. You'd be surprised how many people will step up and do the "right" thing in a jury situation. If a judge says you can't take the tatoos into consideration for determining his guilt for murder, you can't.......and most Americans won't. At least that has been my personal experience.
Will his tatts color the juror's opinion of him? Sure. But then he got them to color people's opinions of him, didn't he?
All well and good - but why set the jury up for having to resist the impulse to be biased against a defendant when it is much easier to simply remove the source of the bias to begin with?
Sounds to me like, in the tat case here, you would prefer that the jury BE biased.
Not at all. You know, many blacks and hispanics complain that their "peer (white) juries" are biaed to their race. Do we assign a number instead of a name, change their voice electronically and hide them behind a screen so the jury can render a fair verdict?
It doesn't matter whether you are black, white, hispanic, fat, skinny, short, tall, pierced, tattooed, etc. If you are charged with murder, you appear in court and get tried for the crime.
All well and good - but why set the jury up for having to resist the impulse to be biased against a defendant when it is much easier to simply remove the source of the bias to begin with?
Sounds to me like, in the tat case here, you would prefer that the jury BE biased.
Not at all. You know, many blacks and hispanics complain that their "peer (white) juries" are biaed to their race. Do we assign a number instead of a name, change their voice electronically and hide them behind a screen so the jury can render a fair verdict?
It doesn't matter whether you are black, white, hispanic, fat, skinny, short, tall, pierced, tattooed, etc. If you are charged with murder, you appear in court and get tried for the crime.
OK - but there are some sources of bias that are "fixable," such as covering tattoos or clothing the defendant in civilian clothing when he is in custody during the trial. Color of skin is not fixable in that fashion, so the law takes other measures such as carefully screening potential jurors for prejudice on voir dire and jury instructions stressing the requirement of not considering race as a factor in the verdict.
True they don't. Which begs the question, why cover them up?
Because it may give the jury an unfair bias against him.
Why would they have an unfair bias against him?
Because it may give the jury an unfair bias against him.
Why would they have an unfair bias against him?
Because a lot of people hate skinheads or at least think they're no good thugs so they might give the man a higher probability he committed the crime based on his skinhead status.
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
No. I don't think tattoos are prejudicial. I do think they are the sign of an ignorant person though. It's been my experience that you can judge the intelligence of the person by the size and number of tattoos. I've never seen a tattoo on anybody that looked attractive.
Why would they have an unfair bias against him?
Because a lot of people hate skinheads or at least think they're no good thugs so they might give the man a higher probability he committed the crime based on his skinhead status.
Isn't that why they have a Jury Poll: To weed-out Jurists that might have an unfair bias against the defendant?
Because a lot of people hate skinheads or at least think they're no good thugs so they might give the man a higher probability he committed the crime based on his skinhead status.
Isn't that why they have a Jury Poll: To weed-out Jurists that might have an unfair bias against the defendant?
The problem with this is, how many people are going to step up and admit to racial prejudice? Not too many.
...."
....If [The Jury] is to be preserved it should be because it is essential to human liberty, individual dignity, and a free society.
If political freedom and a stable society are to be preserved it is essential that there be a system of justice in which the public has confidence and willingness to trust. .....
When these rights are achieved, by whatever means, they get enforced, not through the legislature, not through the executive, but through the courts. They are trials. It is there that the individual finds justice or fails to find justice. What can give him more confidence in that justice than the fact that twelve of his peers participate in meting it out. These twelve men are part of the process. The man concerned may feel that he is not getting justice. The community might not want to accept it. If it was decided by a representative group from the community, it is likely to be accepted. It is here that the administration of justice is brought close to the people. The people are not ready to accept a doubtful decision made by a professional, by a panel of experts, or by a dictator. They are ready to accept that decision which came from their own group. And the jury is a means of bringing the whole power of the citizenry to bear upon the daily administration of justice.
Because a lot of people hate skinheads or at least think they're no good thugs so they might give the man a higher probability he committed the crime based on his skinhead status.
Isn't that why they have a Jury Poll: To weed-out Jurists that might have an unfair bias against the defendant?
The problem with this is, how many people are going to step up and admit to racial prejudice? Not too many.
I once had a jury find my client guilty of murder one. Two years later, a guy came up to me on the street and identified himself as one of the jurors on that case. I asked him what the main thing was that the jury relied upon in convicting the defendant. He said: "The defendant was Mexican. The dead guy was Mexican. We all know that those people kill each other."
On the basis of that chance encounter, I was able to get my client a new trial.
However, the point here is, that when the jury was first being selected, this guy had sailed through voir dire, representing to everyone in the courtroom that he was unbiased and "could be fair."
