Are tattoos prejudicial?

[Samson]

Perhaps tattoo artists should be required to display warnings at the parlor "In the event of a murder charge, your nazi symbols could be prejudicial in a court of law"

Actions Consequences Personal Responsibility

He paid for them. TFB.

The point of the trial isn't to prove whether or not the guy has bad taste.

 

[George Costanza]

By the way the tattoos are relevant when providing the state of mind of the defendant.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

By the way the tattoos are relevant when providing the state of mind of the defendant.

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.

You need to learn just a little about hate groups and white supremacists. 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.

 

[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.

 

[George Costanza]

By the way the tattoos are relevant when providing the state of mind of the defendant.

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.

 

[jillian]

So according to you, the presence of VOLUNTARY Tattoos that the defendant wanted and requested be placed on his body are not allowed? What next? wigs for skin heads?

If tattoos are relevant to the trial, then the judge could prevent the defense from covering them. "I remember the robber had a big "Z" tattooed on his forehead." The defendant has a big Z tattooed on his forehead. That would probably be viewable by the jury on the issue of identification.

If tattoos are NOT relevant to the trial, and would be prejudicial, then they should be covered. In the case mentioned in the OP, it sounds as though the tattoos would NOT be relevant. In such a situation, irrelevant tattoos showing the defendant is a skinhead, would clearly be prejudicial. The jury might convict the defendant solely because they don't like skinheads, rather than because of the actual evidence.

So, to answer your question, yes - in this case, the presence of (irrelevant and prejudicial) VOLUNTARY tattoos are properly not allowed.

Following your logic, if a defendant VOLUNTARILY belonged to the Hell's Angels, then that fact should be presented to the jury in a case where the defendant is on trial for writing a bad check.

You are a dumb shit. But then we already knew that didn't we? By the way the tattoos are relevant when providing the state of mind of the defendant.

his explanation was correct legally. nothing 'dumb' about it.

the state of mind of the defendant in regard to things other than the criminal act with which he is charged is not necessarily relevant.

are you intentionally not following?

the prosecution cannot use inuendo and the prejudices of the jury in lieu of actual evidence -- and for the same reason that prior bad acts of the defendant are inadmissible.

 

[Samson]

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

 

[Luissa]

If his lawyers want to cover them up, that is their choice. The man sounds like an evil person, but everyone should have a fair trial.

 

[Samson]

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.

I'd certainly go along with this is it was a jury of his peers, each with their own set of Nazi tatoos.

But since this is impractical (unless you know of a way of summoning People With Nazi Tatoos to jury duty), then the judge would be wise to avoid an appeal based on the jury being predjudiced by the tatoos.

 

[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 ***** that way.

 

[Samson]

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 ***** 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?

 

[Luissa]

I do not think the court should go out of it's way to help him with this..
But if he wants them covered, and his lawyers can do it on their own, they should be allowed to do so.

 

[Father Time]

If he's allowed to show his tattoos then finding a jury that doesn't all ready have a bias against him is going to be very very hard.

In fact I'd be worried that the tattoos will net him a higher sentence which isn't fair.

 

[George Costanza]

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.

To the extent that his beliefs contributed to the killing of the guard, yes - then the jury should be entitled to hear about those beliefs. I haven't seen anything yet about this case (except speculation on your part) which indicates that his being a skinhead in any way contributed to his killing of the guard.

A jury has "every right" to see who the defendant is and how he thinks PROVIDED it is RELEVANT to the charges and to the facts of the case. You keep ignoring this requirement of RELEVANCE.

Unfortunately for you, our criminal justice system does not.

 

[Father Time]

What's wrong with letting the defendants wear suits? It's an important event and so I think such attire would be appropriate. You'd think juries (and hell anyone really) would be used to seeing liars in suits so they won't be swayed by that.

 

[Father Time]

So according to you, the presence of VOLUNTARY Tattoos that the defendant wanted and requested be placed on his body are not allowed? What next? wigs for skin heads?

If tattoos are relevant to the trial, then the judge could prevent the defense from covering them. "I remember the robber had a big "Z" tattooed on his forehead." The defendant has a big Z tattooed on his forehead. That would probably be viewable by the jury on the issue of identification.

If tattoos are NOT relevant to the trial, and would be prejudicial, then they should be covered. In the case mentioned in the OP, it sounds as though the tattoos would NOT be relevant. In such a situation, irrelevant tattoos showing the defendant is a skinhead, would clearly be prejudicial. The jury might convict the defendant solely because they don't like skinheads, rather than because of the actual evidence.

So, to answer your question, yes - in this case, the presence of (irrelevant and prejudicial) VOLUNTARY tattoos are properly not allowed.

Following your logic, if a defendant VOLUNTARILY belonged to the Hell's Angels, then that fact should be presented to the jury in a case where the defendant is on trial for writing a bad check.

You are a dumb shit. But then we already knew that didn't we? By the way the tattoos are relevant when providing the state of mind of the defendant.

No they aren't. Tattoos don't change depending on someone's state of mind.

You can be asleep, stoned, sober, calm, whatever and your tattoo of an angry skeleton will still be an angry skeleton.

 

[Father Time]

Perhaps tattoo artists should be required to display warnings at the parlor "In the event of a murder charge, your nazi symbols could be prejudicial in a court of law"

Actions Consequences Personal Responsibility

He paid for them. TFB.

Ok would you be willing to go through the effort to find a jury that won't be influenced at all by those tattoos?

Frankly it would cost less taxpayer money to let him hide them.

 

[Father Time]

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.

 

[jillian]

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 ***** that way.

life may be a *****, but that isn't the law.

so much for 'liberty' being your default position.... given you'd be ok with someone being convicted because some juror takes offense at someone's political affiliations.