Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

4 Bumps

Fl Judge Orders Tattoo Makeover in Effort Not To Prejudice Jury??

Neo-Nazi Accused of Hate-Crime Murder Gets Make-over

John Allen Ditullio Jr., an avowed neo-Nazi whose face and neck are covered with tattoos -- including a swastika -- will appear at his trial this week minus the lurid markings thanks to a $125-a-day taxpayer-funded make-over.

Ditullio's attorney persuaded the judge that the "scary" tattoos would prejudice the Florida jury. The state is paying a cosmetologist to cover the tattoos every day during the trial because Ditullio is indigent.

Ditullio could face the death penalty for the stabbing death of a teenager in 2006, in an attack prosecutors call a hate crime motivated by racism and homophobia.

 

**Seriously? If the clothing that someone wore on the day they commit a crime can be seen as evidence, how can their tattoos be a prejudicial element?? He's wearing his beliefs right on his skin, and the jury should see it.

What do you all think?

Answer Question
 
SabrinaMBowen

Asked by SabrinaMBowen at 10:54 AM on Dec. 7, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 40 (122,988 Credits)
Answers (14)
  • Whoa, I think that if HE paid for the procedure, I think it would still be "ify" but I could see it. The tax payers paying for it is a load of crap and the judge should be removed from then bench over this one.
    scout_mom

    Answer by scout_mom at 11:00 AM on Dec. 7, 2010

  • And seriously? $125 A DAY?????

    WHY? Tell me the attorney doesn't have someone that can slap some coverup on them...
    SabrinaMBowen

    Comment by SabrinaMBowen (original poster) at 11:02 AM on Dec. 7, 2010

  • It's pathetic how people are willing to own their beliefs when they commit the crime but not when they face the consequences.

    QuinnMae

    Answer by QuinnMae at 11:02 AM on Dec. 7, 2010

  • Is that considered job creation for the cosmetologist to be working for the state?

    QuinnMae

    Answer by QuinnMae at 11:03 AM on Dec. 7, 2010

  • Attorneys will often have their clients get a neat haircut and wear a suit and tie in court to present a better impression. Recently saw on tv where a guy with a swastica tatoo on his bald head, grew his hair out for court. This judge should not be having the taxpayers funds used for this. It's the way he presented himself to the public, evidently proud, and now he wants it covered so that the jury won't see it? Rediculous! Judges here serve at the desire of the voters. New Port Richey is a small, rural area. Bet the judge will lose his judgeship his next time he's up for retention.
    SweetLuci

    Answer by SweetLuci at 11:03 AM on Dec. 7, 2010

  • The tax payers are paying for this?! What the heck? I agree with you that the jury should see them if he has them in plain sight (some tattoos could easily be hidden by clothing, and he chose to get them on his face and neck). If he was paying to have the procedure done himself, I probably wouldn't care.
    pam19

    Answer by pam19 at 11:04 AM on Dec. 7, 2010

  • I heard about something like this a couple years ago too. I wonder if this is the same one, or it happens more often.

    I think they should be seen if they are material to the crime. If he believes it enough to tattoo it on his face, there's no point hiding them now. But, if they had nothing to do with his crime I could see covering them to ensure the jury doesn't find him guilty just because they don't like him.
    SuperChicken

    Answer by SuperChicken at 11:05 AM on Dec. 7, 2010

  • It's stupid. His tattoos should absolutely be taken into consideration by the jury. If he loved something enough to permanently put it on his body, then he shouldn't have the "right" to remove it for a trial.
    corbysmom531

    Answer by corbysmom531 at 11:10 AM on Dec. 7, 2010

  • $125? You can get a tube of tat concealer for less than $50 and it lasts more than a day.
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 11:16 AM on Dec. 7, 2010

  • Well, I see both sides of this. If the judge wants to stick to evidence and evidence alone, I could see how that would have an effect regarless of his beliefs. Just becuase someone hates gays doesn't mean they killed one. There are lots of white supremacists that hate gays, they need to make sure they get the right one, not just one of them. Plain and simple. I could see how someone who looks intimidating because of their beliefs will have a rough time during trial. Even if he isn't guilty, he may be guilty by association here.

    BUT I don't agree with using such extreme measures to do so. How about long sleeve shirts and ties. And make up for his hands and face. That doesn't cost that much.
    Musicmom80

    Answer by Musicmom80 at 12:15 PM on Dec. 7, 2010

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.