Quote of note:
It did, indeed, expose your thoughts and beliefs…just as you intended them to when you got them. Asshole. It's not like forcing you to talk, it's like understanding what you're screaming out at the top of your lungs.
Tattoos Affirmed as Evidence
By PATRICK HEALY
GARDEN CITY, N.Y., Feb. 17 - The State Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that a defendant's own body - specifically, his tattoos exalting swastikas and skinheads - could be used as evidence that he committed a crime fueled by hatred.
The 4-to-2 ruling in Albany, by the state's highest court, treads the ground between a defendant's right against self-incrimination and a prosecutor's obligation to present evidence to jurors, and it rekindles one of Long Island's most notorious cases of anti-immigrant violence.
The suit was brought by Christopher Slavin, one of two men convicted in 2001 of luring two Mexican laborers the previous year into an abandoned warehouse in Shirley and kicking, beating and stabbing them.
Mr. Slavin and his co-defendant, Ryan D. Wagner, had posed as employers. Both men were sentenced to 25 years in prison.
To convince jurors that the attacks had been motivated by prejudice - a crucial component of some of the charges - prosecutors showed photographs of tattoos on Mr. Slavin's arms, chest and abdomen that featured black swastikas, a white fist and a skinhead kicking a large-nosed man wearing a skullcap.
Mr. Slavin had objected when the police took the photos, and his lawyer protested when they were shown in court, first to a grand jury to secure an indictment, and then during the trial.
Mr. Slavin's lawyer, Robert Del Col, said during the trial that prosecutors were using the tattoos to make the jury dislike Mr. Slavin and that the tattoos were not relevant to his guilt or innocence.
During the trial, an expert on hate speech explained the images' symbolism to jurors.
Mr. Slavin's argument before the Court of Appeals was that photographing his tattoos and displaying them on a projector screen violated his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The tattoos disclosed his thoughts and beliefs, he argued, and showing them was akin to forcing him to talk.
"We disagree," the majority wrote in their decision. "The tattoos were physical characteristics, not statements forced from his mouth."
Judge Carmen B. Ciparick and Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye dissented, saying that Mr. Slavin's "heinous crimes and despicable beliefs do not exempt him from the protections of the Constitution or the law."
Unlike a blood-alcohol sample taken from a drunken driver, or a tattoo used to identify a suspect, the prosecutors used pictures of Mr. Slavin's tattoos to plumb his mind, thoughts and motives, the dissenting judges wrote. Doing so over his objections amounted to a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights, they said.
The Mexican laborers who were attacked never saw the tattoos on Mr. Slavin or his co-defendant, according to the court's ruling, so they could not have been shown to identify the defendants.
Although there was ample evidence that Mr. Slavin committed the attacks, the dissenting judges wrote, there was little besides the tattoos to prove that the crimes had been motivated by prejudice, and they recommended that Mr. Slavin's conviction for aggravated harassment in the second degree be reversed.
Posted by P6 at February 18, 2004 08:39 AM
Trackback URL: http://www.niggerati.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/447
Comments
I think that the tatoos are valid evidence. They are a document. On the other hand, I think don't agree with the entire concept of hate-crime legislation. Convict and punish him for what he did, not what he thought. Isn't murdering two people enough to justify the death penalty? (It would be here in Texas.)
What really bothers me is the potential grand jury misconduct. The grand jury system in America is horribly corrupted, and needs to be reformed.
Posted by Phelps at February 18, 2004 11:29 AMCheck that -- I was left with the impression that he stabbed them to death, which isn't what it said. Still, the premeditated stabbing (attempted murder) would be enough to get him 25 years in Texas.
Posted by Phelps at February 18, 2004 11:30 AMThe reason for hate crimes legislation is two fold:
#1: F. society. Individuals matter. Society does not.
#2: People are vulnerable to crime. It doesn't matter if they are more or less likely to be attacked, and it doesn't matter if they can control the reasons. No one should be allowed to commit a crime against anyone else. Sectioning out people for "special" protection is wrong.
Posted by Phelps at February 18, 2004 02:46 PMIndividuals matter. Society does not.
Well, in that case you are out of line to expect protection of civil society.
People are vulnerable to crime. It doesn't matter if they are more or less likely to be attacked, and it doesn't matter if they can control the reasons
Pardon me if I beg to differ. Crime prevention is something I care about, and I don't think it is being unreasonable to be more dilligent about protecting persons most at risk. It certainly is more prudential.
It seems to me a small government libertarian should reject "cosmic justice" and favor prudential strategies. Arbitrary decrees such as the ones in your previous post, to my inaugust mind, seem to hinder the parsimonious use of state agency.
Posted by James R MacLean at February 18, 2004 03:05 PMIf the mental state of the killer was immaterial, there would be no difference between murder and manslaughter because those crimes differ only in the intent of the killer; both are homicide.
Posted by Al-Muhajabah at February 18, 2004 03:19 PMBTW, I think there's a broken DIV or BLOCKQUOTE tag in this entry.
Posted by Al-Muhajabah at February 18, 2004 03:31 PMIf the mental state of the killer was immaterial, there would be no difference between murder and manslaughter because those crimes differ only in the intent of the killer; both are homicide.
That is close, but not quite. It is an issue of Mens Rea. (Literally translated to "guilty mind".) The issue in those cases isn't why the person did what they did; the issue is whether or not they knew they were committing a crime. That is different than saying that it is A-Bad to think this this way and B-Bad to think another way.
In Murder and manslaughter, the mens rea question is: did the person have the intent to kill someone, or did the person do something that they knew might end up killing someone? If they intended to kill someone, that is murder. If they did something that they knew might end up causing someone to die, then it is manslaughter. If they had neither intent, then there is no mens rea and no crime.
Posted by Phelps at February 18, 2004 03:46 PMCrime prevention is something I care about, and I don't think it is being unreasonable to be more dilligent about protecting persons most at risk. It certainly is more prudential.
Okay, if that is the standard, then we should start making all those Jews stop believing in the Talmud so the skinheads won't target them anymore. After all, we are judging throught and belief now, right? And while we are at it, let's make Islam illegal. No, wait, we don't have to do that. We'll just make it a harsher punishment for a Muslim to commit a crime that also scares other people. We'll call it our Anti-Terroristic Tendancies Act (ATTA).
I barely trust the government to prosecute murder. I sure as hell don't trust them to prosecute beliefs.
Posted by Phelps at February 18, 2004 03:53 PMCrime prevention is something I care about, and I don't think it is being unreasonable to be more dilligent about protecting persons most at risk. It certainly is more prudential.Okay, if that is the standard, then we should start making all those Jews stop believing in the Talmud so the skinheads won't target them anymore. After all, we are judging throught and belief now, right? And while we are at it, let's make Islam illegal. No, wait, we don't have to do that. We'll just make it a harsher punishment for a Muslim to commit a crime that also scares other people. We'll call it our Anti-Terroristic Tendancies Act (ATTA).
You do understand the difference between punishing someone for initiating violence and preventing someone from living as they please, don't you? I mean, as a Libertarian you surely understand the difference, right?
Posted by P6 at February 18, 2004 05:25 PMYou do understand the difference between punishing someone for initiating violence and preventing someone from living as they please, don't you? I mean, as a Libertarian you surely understand the difference, right?
Absolutely. I just don't trust the government to make that distinction. Hate Crime is Thought Crime. It isn't the punishment of an act; it is the punishment of believing something other than what the majority believes. Skinheads and Anti-semites are a despicable minority, but it is far too slippery a slope to start labeling other minorities (like eco-nuts and libertarian-nuts) the same way. What happens when libertarians are labeled subversive? If a libertarian resists arrest during a protest and slugs a cop, that becomes a hate crime. What happens when Muslims are labeled subversive? When a Muslim gets into a shoving match over a bag of Cheetos in a store with a Christian, suddenly it is a hate crime, just because the perpetrator is unliked.
(Cheetos are halal, right?)
Posted by Phelps at February 19, 2004 01:21 PMGood, now let's see what happens when we move from principle to reality.You do understand the difference between punishing someone for initiating violence and preventing someone from living as they please, don't you? I mean, as a Libertarian you surely understand the difference, right?Absolutely. I just don't trust the government to make that distinction.
We all agree that there should be no imposition on people based on their living as they see fit. Right?
Since we all agree, what's wrong with the government acting on a common agreement? Nothing…in fact, that should underlie ALL government actions.
But hold on, we're only half way to reality.
The reality is, we do NOT all agree that people shouldn't be imposed upon based on their living as they see fit. If we did, we wouldn't even be having the conversation.
Now, let's take the final step to reality.
Did you choose to be hetrosexual?
Posted by P6 at February 19, 2004 02:14 PMAnd saying "people matter, society doesn't" is like a bee saying bees matter, the hive doesn't.
Until you recognize that humans are social animals and deal with the repercussions of that, your politics will continue to be inapplicable.
Posted by P6 at February 19, 2004 02:17 PMPhelps, is there a particular reason you keep using Muslims as examples here? Just curious.
Posted by Al-Muhajabah at February 19, 2004 02:18 PMDid you choose to be hetrosexual?
Yup. In fact, it seems that many people can actually choose to not have sex at all, amazing as that sounds. There are even some people who claim to have gone their entire lives without sex.
Until you recognize that humans are social animals and deal with the repercussions of that, your politics will continue to be inapplicable.
Humans are not social animals in the sense bees are. There is no natural hierarchy for people like bees. We are all queens (heh) as humans.
Civil association is a natural reaction, but it is not a vital one. Without it, society would be screwed. The human race would not.
Phelps, is there a particular reason you keep using Muslims as examples here? Just curious.
Two reasons: it is a personal example for someone who is a regular here (you) and that makes it more empathetic; and because this sort of persecution was and continues to be a real threat after 9/11 and until the War on Terror is over. Our history with Japanese-Americans in WW2 is something that we need to all keep in mind. It can happen here.
Posted by Phelps at February 19, 2004 05:44 PMOur history with Japanese-Americans in WW2 is something that we need to all keep in mind. It can happen here.
Ah, now that I agree with.
That was poorly phrased on my part. I guess the most pointed way of asking this is, do you think you could choose to be gay? I've watched friend grow up gay, they jusy were and that's it. They could not choose to be straight. And don't think you could choose to be gay. I know I couldn't.Did you choose to be hetrosexual?Yup. In fact, it seems that many people can actually choose to not have sex at all, amazing as that sounds. There are even some people who claim to have gone their entire lives without sex.
Humans are not social animals in the sense bees are. There is no natural hierarchy for people like bees. We are all queens (heh) as humans.
Find me an example of a human culture that didn't have a hierarchical structure. In fact, find me an example of any social species that doesn't have an hierarchical structure...a pecking order, if you will.
But more to the point, the fact that we are a social species means without a society we will die.
Society is our environment. If we were fish, society would be our lakes, rivers, oceans. Unlike fish, though, we can profoundly affect the medium in which we live. I would see it enriched, not dried out.
Posted by P6 at February 19, 2004 06:51 PMPhelps is not a racist. He's a rhetoritician.
Posted by P6 at February 19, 2004 06:53 PM