Not on the race issues etc. But its hard to argue that tattoos promoting violence and crime on ones face do not indeed reflect some inner tendencies. Unless they were done against their will or with more irony than I think is possible for a sane person…
Yeah, it actually should be pretty easy for the prosecution to bring this up if they want to.
I don’t think the tear drop is nearly on the same level of influencing the jury. Yeah, it probably will lead some jury members to guess that he hasn’t always been a model of clean-living pillar of the community type. But it doesn’t necessarily sway them to think that he’s specifically extra likely to be a murderer the way a great big “MURDER” neck tattoo does.
“Teddy-Don’t believe his lies"
So you’d genuinely agree with the statement that:
“Having a tattoo spelling ‘murder’ across the throat, and a teardrop tattoo under the eye puts the wearer in a group of individuals less likely to be associated with violent criminal behaviour than the average man on the street”
I’m not claiming that playing Gods of War on a Playstation or having a tattoo from a computer game like Assassin’s Creed or ‘ugly’ tattoos in general are relevant.
I suspect it wouldn’t matter if I was excluded as a juror on this case, because there’s a limit to the number of jurors who can be excluded during selection, and my view is not particularly radical. If I was instructed to ignore such tattoos when forming an opinion I would either do so, or excuse myself.
The defendant being visible to the jury is a protection for the defendant. It’s about your right to face your accusers and the people responsible for deciding your fate face to face. If I were on trial for a murder, especially one that I truly did not commit, I would definitely want the people who were determining my guilt or innocence to be able to see me, see the innocence and honesty in my body language, and more importantly to be reminded throughout the trial that I’m a live human being not too much different from themselves and other people they know and love, to have to stand feet away from the face of the person who’s fate they hold in their hands and bear that in mind as they pass judgment. Keeping the defendant humanized is important.
2 Likes
Depends on whether or not the jury is stacked with Internet People.
2 Likes
If I were the prosecution, even if the defendant got a cover-up tattoo, or used make-up or fashion or whatever to hide the tattoo, I would definitely find some sort of reason to show a picture that featured the defendant with the tattoo still visible. I’d justify it as evidence related to something else, but I’d make sure that the jury got to see that he’s the sort of guy who runs around with a murder neck tattoo. If the other side’s going to try to paint him as a nice guy, I’d make sure they were able to see the way he presented himself with that tattoo. He may not want the jury to see him as a murderer, but that tattoo definitely plants some doubts about how he wanted to be seen by others and how he sees himself.
Heck, if I couldn’t find another way to justify showing a pic with the tattoo showing, I’d find a reason to call his tattoo artist to testify. If he’s going to have people trying to say he’s not the kind of dude who would ever kill somebody, I’d bring in the guy who he paid to tattoo a highly visible permanent murder-positive sign on him.
Shoot, a lot of guys are in prison basically for looking thuggish (and being black). There’s a mentality that even if you don’t really have the evidence to convict him on the current case, that he’s probably up to no good regardless and should be sent to the pokey. It’s one reason we have so many innocent people on death row. The cops pick up a black gangbanger near where some white person murdered and it’s not super difficult to get a jury to convict them, especially if you’re willing to tamper a little evidence and maybe lie under oath.
I mean look at this thread. We’re all ready to convict this guy based on the fact that he’s got an “I murdered someone” tattoo and an extremely poor choice in a neck tattoo. We don’t know the facts in this case, he could very well be innocent and just picked up because of his tattoos. The real killer might be running around still while we fret over just how much of a dumbass one man can be.
2 Likes
Maybe he’s a big Stephen King fan and was trying to make a Shining reference?
Ok, the odds of that are pretty small, but I hate the idea of convicting someone just because he looks like an asshole.
4 Likes
You can’t write “manslaughter” without laughter.
4 Likes
“No, no, no, no. It’s German for ‘The, Bart, The’”
“Oh well no one who speaks German can be all bad.”
5 Likes
It definitely shouldn’t be the only reason to convict him, but it is an important bit of information about the kind of guy he is or wants people to think he is. They will be presenting a LOT more evidence and arguments at the trial. Giving the jury a whole picture of the situation is important. If the only thing that leans at all toward him being a murderer is the tattoo, yeah, it’s not nearly enough to jump right to a guilty verdict. But if there are some other things about the situation, other pieces of evidence tying him to the crime, the tattoo (or other voluntarily chosen aspect of their appearance) is a part of the big picture. If someone is thinking “Well, they do have his finger prints on the murder weapon, he doesn’t have an alibi, and he did stand to gain from killing the victim, but he doesn’t seem like the type of guy who would kill someone. He seems like he might be a nice stable dude.” the visual advertisement he chose that says the opposite of that could be an important factor.
The thing is he is not asking to get rid of the tattoo he just wants to make it not say murder. If he was asking for laser removal you might have point.
Maybe he could grow a hipster neckbeard, but that might put off even more people…
3 Likes
a tattoo of a turtleneck shirt is probably the best long term option, barring time travel as you suggested.
2 Likes
make up / high neck shirt/turtle neck.
The tattoo is highly prejudicial (never get a tattoo you can’t cover up in court), but is no grounds for conviction (can’t be made to testify against yourself). It does make him look like a jack-ass of the highest order and must seriously self select the people that he associates with or would associate with him and what kind of employment he could pursue. Just because someone is a complete blithering idiot is not reason to convict them of murder. Even if acquitted he’s got a life of pain to endure for that stupid mistake. Best bet, grow a full beard and convert to Amish.
Here ya go, buddy…
1 Like
Mod note: Comments on rape will not be tolerated. They will be deleted, as will users who continue to make them.
7 Likes
