I am a little late getting this out this morning – the power was out for a while. A Kansas man has the tattooed mirror-image letters spelling out the word "murder" across his neck. The tattoo is not usually a problem for him because of the social circles he is in. His tattoo became a problem when police charged him with first-degree murder. He is afraid it might prejudice a jury. Duh! Although I am not sure that a stupid tattoo would influence intelligent people, he might have a point. Here are some legal questions to consider:
1. Should the government pay to have a professional tattoo artist remove or cover it up?
2. Why can’t he wear a turtleneck or a large dog collar?
3. If he removes the tattoo, could the police charge him with concealing evidence?
4. Does having a tattoo that spells "murder" demonstrate a lack of sound judgment?
5. Does removing it violate his right to free speech?
6. Would allowing this create a presidency that could allow criminals to remove their face or fingerprints before a trial because it might “prejudice a jury?"
7. Should he be allowed to have a tattoo that says, “I didn’t kill the guy.”?
1. Should the government pay to have a professional tattoo artist remove or cover it up?
2. Why can’t he wear a turtleneck or a large dog collar?
3. If he removes the tattoo, could the police charge him with concealing evidence?
4. Does having a tattoo that spells "murder" demonstrate a lack of sound judgment?
5. Does removing it violate his right to free speech?
6. Would allowing this create a presidency that could allow criminals to remove their face or fingerprints before a trial because it might “prejudice a jury?"
7. Should he be allowed to have a tattoo that says, “I didn’t kill the guy.”?
RSS Feed
