Prometheus 6
All respect and no restraint
User loginLive Discussions
Blog linksA Skeptical Blog NathanNewman.org Tech Notes |
Google searchTip jarDropping KnowledgeLibrary of Congress African American Odyssey Link CollectionsNews sourcesOn CultureReality checksThe Public LibraryWho's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 632 guests online.
...Syndicate |
If you're going to be a racist, don't be a chickenshit racistby Prometheus 6
February 18, 2004 - 8:39am. on Race and Identity Quote of note: 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. BZZZT! Wrong.
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 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. 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. Trackback URL for this post:http://www.prometheus6.org/trackback/3221
Post new comment |