Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Image

Extreme Criminal Court Makeover 14

Posted by samzenpus
from the guilty-is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder dept.
None of the jurors in John Ditullio's trial will get to see his swastika tattoo, the profanity written on his neck, or any of the other jail tattoos he's acquired thanks to his lawyer Bjorn Brunvand. Ditullio's attorney, successfully argued that the tattoos could be prejudicial to the jurors saying, "It’s easier to give someone who looks like you a fair shake.” The court agreed to a $125 court makeover before each session of his trial. From the article: "'There’s no doubt in my mind — without the makeup being used, there’s no way a jury could look at John and judge him fairly,' Mr. Brunvand said in an interview in his office here. 'It’s too frightening when you see him with the tattoos. It’s a scary picture.'”

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Extreme Criminal Court Makeover

Comments Filter:
  • No one forced him to get those tattoos and he's not looking to have them permanently removed. So I'd say they are part of him, part of his persona and should be shown to the jury.
    • by vxice (1690200)
      By that argument none of his body should be covered. Where do you stop? Shirt, shoes, pants...?
      • It's quite clear that getting a tattoo on your face/neck is shouting something about your personality to anyone who looks at you. Getting a tattoo on you chest/butt/somewhere else not so obvious may indicate that you have a wild side, but you have the discretion to put it away when it's not appropriate. A lack of discretion is something that may be of interest to a jury.

    • As stated in TFA, judge could just as well instruct the jury to disregard the tattoos in their judgment of the "facts".

      The issue here is the fact that the cost of the makeover will be covered by the court. I.e. the taxpayers.
      The reason being that a wealthier defendant could afford such a makeover and even to completely remove the tattoos.
      As an interesting point, TFA mentions Enron case and defendants there removing their $10000 watches in court to appear more “kind of like me” to the jury.

      Look a

    • It's fair to say that they should be made aware of the tatoos but people, especially sheltered people, make misinterperating tatoos almost into a hobby. Now granted I'm not saying there is any other meaning for a swastika on your neck other then to say "HEY WORLD! I'M A JERK" but other things like his tear drop for example can be made to mean any number of things.

      The Important Question: Who is paying for this make over?

      • Checking back on this thread has made me think a little about being a bit more fair about viewing this topic, but you are now the second person that has remarked on the tattoo by his eye as a tear drop. Let's be clear that it is the start of a SCAR tattoo that wasn't covered up by the makeup. Now, if it was left visible because it was too close to the eye for makeup to cover then that's one thing, but if it was done intentionally so members of the jury would mistake it as a tear to evoke some sympathy, then
    • by ignusb (1619861)
      The court system is there to give a fair trial while judging against a set of evidence in order to establish whether a person is guilty or innocent of crimes they are charged with. Given the same evidence, it shouldn't matter whether it is a man covered in prison tattoos or a lil' old granny.
    • by paxcoder (1222556)

      No one forced him to get those tattoos and he's not looking to have them permanently removed. So I'd say they are part of him, part of his persona and should be shown to the jury.

      Stop. Think. Remember:

      jail tattoos

      Yes. Which means... put lightly... extreme peer pressure.
      And where is his current residence? Yes that's right: He can't remove them without risking his life.

      Try doing what I have thought you up there before you make such a predictable /. comment next times, k?

  • My experience has been that many with tattoos have a persecution complex. Sure they got the tattoo, and they put it on some publicly viewable part of their bodies. But even a partial eye-roll at some naked-lady tattoo that's all warped by dramatic weight gain, and apparently the rest of society is "always judging me". Buwahaha. Imo, Tattoos are for people who want to believe that their neighbors are discriminating against them unfairly. Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
    • by zakeria (1031430)
      What a load of bullocks! tattoo's are simply freedom of expression. you may not like what some people may want to express but on the whole its just art.

"Never give in. Never give in. Never. Never. Never." -- Winston Churchill

Working...