Protecting defendants from their own stupidity

Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

TheHeretic -> Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/8/2009 8:04:55 PM)
An accused murderer in Florida will be provided with the services of a licensed cosmetologist, at taxpayer expense, to conceal his swastika, "fuck you," and either barbed wire or Frankenstein scar, tattoos for the duration of his trial. Now, dressing up the defendant is pretty much par for the course in our justice system. There is an old joke about what one says to a (insert racial/social minority here) in a three-piece suit, with the answer being, "will the defendant please rise." Here, the defendant obtained his facial and high neck tattoos AFTER he was arrested for the murder. Why does he deserve protection from possibly prejudicing the jury when he chose to have that ink added knowing full well he would be going in front of one? If he decided he wanted to face a capital case with a swastika on one side of his neck, and "fuck you" on the other, why should we interfere with his First Amendment rights? Thoughts?

slvemike4u -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/8/2009 8:18:50 PM)
Because despite his stupidity he still retains the right to a fair trial.Not a stretch for any lawyer to convince any judge that those stupid markings would pose too high a risk of prejudicing a jury against his client.

pahunkboy -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/8/2009 8:19:52 PM)
be careful what for tattoos you get. ..and people never look nice when the mug shot photo is released. Not that "I"""""""" would know. ;-)

TheHeretic -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/8/2009 8:31:48 PM)
Before and after pics here Yeah, Mike, he does deserve a fair trial, and I'd hate to see his stunt turn into the appeal that gets him off death row 10 or 15 years from now.

DarkSteven -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/8/2009 8:45:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I'd hate to see his stunt turn into the appeal that gets him off death row 10 or 15 years from now. Yeah, I think this is a slam dunk case, and my impression is that the judge allowed the coverup to remove one ground for appeal. That said, I don't see what the difference is between the pre-arrest tattoos and the post-arrest ones. The post-arrest tattoos are more disgusting, sure, but what would be the legal reasoning for allowing only those after the arrest? And how the hell did he manage to get tattoos behind bars?

slvemike4u -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/8/2009 8:51:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Before and after pics here Yeah, Mike, he does deserve a fair trial, and I'd hate to see his stunt turn into the appeal that gets him off death row 10 or 15 years from now. Well than there you go....handing his lawyer a ready made winning appeal startegy would wind up costing the state more money in the long run....than bending over backwards and doing it right the first time.

popeye1250 -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/8/2009 9:07:46 PM)
Reading the article it's too bad that the people in the house he broke into didn't shoot him! They should let him loose among a group of elderly WW2 Veterans and Death Camp survivors armed with golf clubs! Now that may be "unusual" but it's not cruel! Why would anyone in their right mind want a tattoo of a swatzsticker on their body? What first amendment rights is that? If my father and his friends ever saw a guy like that they'd have beat the living hell out of the guy! And most of them were Sailors and Marines in the Pacific in WW2 not Europe.

Termyn8or -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 12:46:11 AM)
If the crime dictated the time, regardless of any other than mitigating circumstances, this would not be an issue at all. T

LadyEllen -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 2:59:38 AM)
Just because morons like this choose to follow previous morons in abusing the sunwheel, does not mean the sunwheel ought to be condemned, nor those who use it properly; unless we truly believe Hindus and followers of other distantly related religions are satanists or some such nonsense. He's a moron; for that alone he could hang as far as I am concerned. E

thishereboi -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 4:33:43 AM)
I totally agree. He wanted the tats, who are we to say he shouldn't wear them proudly. If it is problem for him, then he should come up with the cash to cover them.

slaveluci -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 6:03:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven And how the hell did he manage to get tattoos behind bars? Homemade tattoo guns powered by the "motor" from things like a Walkman. My former husband got and gave hundreds of jailhouse tattoos over his long prison "career."[8\|] It's very simple to do and, even though it's against the rules, like everything else, it goes on all around..........luci

slaveluci -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 6:11:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Here, the defendant obtained his facial and high neck tattoos AFTER he was arrested for the murder. Why does he deserve protection from possibly prejudicing the jury when he chose to have that ink added knowing full well he would be going in front of one? He doesn't. quote: If he decided he wanted to face a capital case with a swastika on one side of his neck, and "fuck you" on the other, why should we interfere with his First Amendment rights? We shouldn't. It's hard to find someone who supports defendant/inmate rights more than I do. The judicial and penal systems are corrupt and need a total overhaul, imho. However, on this issue, the guy isn't entitled to any special help to keep from "prejudicing" the jury. Frankly, the jury is probably gonna be prejudiced anyway, esp. with the other tattoos he already had. These aren't going to be the deciding factor and, as you mentioned, he got them AFTER his arrest. If he's not smart enough to realize the effect they (any face or neck tattoo) would have on the jury, maybe there are bigger issues here - perhaps regarding his mental capacities. He did it knowing he was going to face a jury so face them with the tats he should.............luci

LadyPact -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 8:25:10 AM)
I have to admit, this is one of the dumbest ploys that I've ever heard of and a complete waste of money for the taxpayers in FL to have to tolerate. They are already in for having to support this guy's right to a lawyer, and most likely will have him on their dime for room and board for the next few years. Now in addition, they have to foot the bill to cover his tattoos?

Musicmystery -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 8:29:53 AM)
quote: Thoughts? It's an eye-roller, for sure, but the judge made the right call. It's not cheaper to retry this thing several times. People tend to think in terms of what "should" be. Trouble is, that often just doesn't work. That was the heart of my consulting practice, getting businesses to let go and change to what does work. The judge is being pragmatic. And, annoying as this case is, protecting the accused's rights. Stupidity was committing the crime in the first place. The legal proceedings are adherence to our principle that you aren't guilty just by being accused, and that you deserve a fair trial by a jury of your peers. That right deserves to be protected, even when it means silly things like this. A few thoughts.

LadyPact -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 10:45:10 AM)
A few properly placed and taped bandages would have 'protected' the defendant in the very same way. Five bucks.

slvemike4u -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 10:49:32 AM)
Nope LP,the jury can't be sitting there wondering what the defendant is hiding underneath those bandages. I understand the objection to this being done.....but better a few tax-payers bitch and moan about the rediculousness of this situation....than some other poor asshole get sent to prison,innocent of the charges he is convicted for, thru his stupidity(choice of tattoo)and a juries prejudice.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 10:52:38 AM)
If the "House" episode wrt to jailhouse tattoos, heavy metals and MRIs has any medical basis, send him for an MRI while they are at it.

LadyPact -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 10:53:52 AM)
Have you read that link, mike? Do you really think the guy is innocent?

slvemike4u -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 10:54:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy If the "House" episode wrt to jailhouse tattoos, heavy metals and MRIs has any medical basis, send him for an MRI while they are at it. Can't do that...he's uninsured!

slvemike4u -> RE: Protecting defendants from their own stupidity (12/9/2009 10:58:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyPact Have you read that link, mike? Do you really think the guy is innocent? No LP ,I don't...thats why I referenced some other poor stupid schmuck. His innocence has nothing to do with it.....it is the maintaining of the presumption of innocence that must be uncompromised during his trial. If these tats would lead to the premature eroding of that presumption the state is obligated to remove them.No matter how distasteful we all find it.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125