It's not mayhem, says judge, but should it even be a crime?

[Snowboarder Bo]

Story here (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jTrYMaNZkHykUniByp0xQI30hqxAD9B34P8G0).

A father and his friend were both charged with cruel and inhumane treatment of a child for giving the child a small tattoo of a dog's paw print. They could have faced a charge of aggravated mayhem, which carries a potential life sentence, but the judge decided the act did not fit that charge and would not allow prosecutors to proceed. The new charge carries a 7 year sentence.

Curiously, the article notes:

The defendants were not charged with the one crime that defense attorneys agreed they deserved: applying a tattoo to a child under 18, which in California is a misdemeanor that carries a six-month sentence.

But why is that even a crime?

In this case, the child wanted the tattoo, telling his father "I want to be like you." The father acquiesced and his friend did the tattoo, which is described as being about the size of a quarter. Presumable it wasn't in a normally visible location, since it was a couple of weeks before the child's mother (estranged from the dad) discovered it.

I can't think that what they did was cruel and inhumane, let alone aggravated mayhem, and in fact I can't even understand why it's a crime to apply a tattoo to a child under 18, especially if they have parental consent.

ETA: the tattoo is/was on the boys hip. cite (http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/1486044.html)

[Death of Rats]

Jebus, trying for a life sentance for applying a tatoo? Was the DA banging the mom or something?

[MPB in Salt Lake]

Story here (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jTrYMaNZkHykUniByp0xQI30hqxAD9B34P8G0).

A father and his friend were both charged with cruel and inhumane treatment of a child for giving the child a small tattoo of a dog's paw print. They could have faced a charge of aggravated mayhem, which carries a potential life sentence, but the judge decided the act did not fit that charge and would not allow prosecutors to proceed. The new charge carries a 7 year sentence.

Curiously, the article notes:



But why is that even a crime?

In this case, the child wanted the tattoo, telling his father "I want to be like you." The father acquiesced and his friend did the tattoo, which is described as being about the size of a quarter. Presumable it wasn't in a normally visible location, since it was a couple of weeks before the child's mother (estranged from the dad) discovered it.

I can't think that what they did was cruel and inhumane, let alone aggravated mayhem, and in fact I can't even understand why it's a crime to apply a tattoo to a child under 18, especially if they have parental consent.

ETA: the tattoo is/was on the boys hip. cite (http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/1486044.html)

What if the parent in question wanted to get his seven year old a tatoo that said "Fuckkk Fags" or "Sieg Heil, Sucka" or even "I Love Kelsey Grammers new hit sitcom Hank"?

[MsWhatsit]

In reading the article, I note that the tattoo was a gang sign, representative of the gang that the father belonged to. Also, the seven-year sentence that Dad wound up with wasn't just for the tattoo, but included what the article referred to as "gang enhancements." So it's not quite as straightforward as "Dad gives child a small pawprint tattoo." He got the kid tattooed with a gang sign.

I'm not sure how I feel about the basic idea that tattooing a child is unlawful. I think that tattooing a gang sign on your kid should definitely fall afoul of the law, though.

[Snowboarder Bo]

What if the parent in question wanted to get his seven year old a tatoo that said "Fuckkk Fags" or "Sieg Heil, Sucka" or even "I Love Kelsey Grammers new hit sitcom Hank"?

The parent in question didn't want to get his kid tattooed with anything; it was the kid's idea.

[Snowboarder Bo]

In reading the article, I note that the tattoo was a gang sign, representative of the gang that the father belonged to. Also, the seven-year sentence that Dad wound up with wasn't just for the tattoo, but included what the article referred to as "gang enhancements." So it's not quite as straightforward as "Dad gives child a small pawprint tattoo." He got the kid tattooed with a gang sign.

I'm not sure how I feel about the basic idea that tattooing a child is unlawful. I think that tattooing a gang sign on your kid should definitely fall afoul of the law, though.

He didn't get the kid tattooed with a gane sign, tho. The kid wanted the tattoo, the father allowed him to get it.

I would agree that "getting" the kid tattooed would be cruel, akin to branding him, but that isn't what happened here.

[Sage Rat]

I'm not sure how I feel about the basic idea that tattooing a child is unlawful.
I suspect that the idea is similar to making it still be illegal to have sex with a child no matter how much he begs you.

Tattoos are a permanent feature of your body for the rest of your life. A child can't reasonably be viewed as being able to understand the ramifications of that. (Though, I mean, note that the actual crime is only a misdemeanor, and I personally wouldn't make it anything more than that.)

[MsWhatsit]

Well, to be 100% accurate, what happened is that the dad went to a tattoo artist's place to get his own tattoo, and brought the kid along with him. Once they were there, the kid expressed the desire to get a tattoo for himself.

My initial reaction to this topic is to say that it is not OK for parents to let their kids do something that permanently physically alters their bodies, before the kids are really old enough to understand the implications of this. On the other hand, to be logically consistent I would then also have to disapprove of people getting their babies' ears pierced, and while I find that practice somewhat distasteful, I definitely don't think it should be illegal. So...I don't know.

[Larry Borgia]

What if the parent in question wanted to get his seven year old a tatoo that said "Fuckkk Fags" or "Sieg Heil, Sucka" or even "I Love Kelsey Grammers new hit sitcom Hank"?He didn't.

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

Sorry to go all JDT, but as long as routine infant circumcision is legal, I can't see the moral or rational grounds for disallowing a small tattoo. It would be one thing if a family disfigured a child in a way that would make them socially excluded, I suppose, and perhaps the gang issues in this case do point more toward some sort of mental abuse like that, but the mere fact of a tattoo? I suppose we should also go after all the families whose baby girls have pierced ears.

[Sage Rat]

On the other hand, to be logically consistent I would then also have to disapprove of people getting their babies' ears pierced, and while I find that practice somewhat distasteful, I definitely don't think it should be illegal. So...I don't know.

Piercings close back up.

[MsWhatsit]

Mine didn't. I haven't worn earrings for going on a decade, and the holes are still there. MrWhatsit hasn't had earrings in his piercings for almost 20 years, and his are still there as well.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Tattoos are a permanent feature of your body for the rest of your life. A child can't reasonably be viewed as being able to understand the ramifications of that. (Though, I mean, note that the actual crime is only a misdemeanor, and I personally wouldn't make it anything more than that.)

But they aren't permanent.

The paw print, which was applied in April, is being removed.

[MPB in Salt Lake]

He didn't.

Larry Borgia, I can tell from reading your posts over the years that you are an intelligent person: I KNOW that the man in question did not have his child tattooed with hate speech, profanity or dubious artistic expressions.

The question I asked is, what would you think if he (or anyone else) DID tattoo their children with offensive imagery?

[kaylasdad99]

I've always held the opinion that the only possible circumstance for wanting a tattoo is being screamingly drunk.

I'm going to have to modify that to "being in a state of such poor judgement that one's so-called wishes and desires cannot be responsibly indulged without intense scrutiny from a grownup."

Being seven years old covers that.

[Guinastasia]

Getting a seven-year-old a tattoo just because the kid wants one? Well, great, I wanted a pony when I was seven. Didn't mean I got one.
What about a kid who wants to drive a car, or have a beer? What then? Considering the tattoo was a gang sign, I'd say the guy wasn't exactly Mike Brady.

(But the original sentence, yes, life without parole was definitely insane)

[mswas]

In reading the article, I note that the tattoo was a gang sign, representative of the gang that the father belonged to. Also, the seven-year sentence that Dad wound up with wasn't just for the tattoo, but included what the article referred to as "gang enhancements." So it's not quite as straightforward as "Dad gives child a small pawprint tattoo." He got the kid tattooed with a gang sign.

I'm not sure how I feel about the basic idea that tattooing a child is unlawful. I think that tattooing a gang sign on your kid should definitely fall afoul of the law, though.

Yeah, my daughter's best friend (2 year old) got her ears pierced, which I thought was truly bizarre, but her parents say she was begging for them. I don't know, it's weird to me, but then my wife doesn't have her ears pierced so my daughter isn't even really aware of earrings.

[Snowboarder Bo]

Getting a seven-year-old a tattoo just because the kid wants one? Well, great, I wanted a pony when I was seven. Didn't mean I got one.
What about a kid who wants to drive a car, or have a beer? What then? Considering the tattoo was a gang sign, I'd say the guy wasn't exactly Mike Brady.

(But the original sentence, yes, life without parole was definitely insane)

But if mutilating a male child's genitals (before he can even speak, let alone express a desire to do so) isn't a crime, why should allowing him to get a tattoo be a crime?

[Snowboarder Bo]

I've always held the opinion that the only possible circumstance for wanting a tattoo is being screamingly drunk.

I'm going to have to modify that to "being in a state of such poor judgement that one's so-called wishes and desires cannot be responsibly indulged without intense scrutiny from a grownup."

Being seven years old covers that.

Do you apply this same judgement to pierced ears or circumcision (which is done without the child's wish or desire)?

[Grumman]

Getting a seven-year-old a tattoo just because the kid wants one? Well, great, I wanted a pony when I was seven. Didn't mean I got one.
What about a kid who wants to drive a car, or have a beer? What then?
I've never heard of someone losing control of their tattoo and killing people. And unlike a pet, a tattoo does not require years of maintenance and attention.

Please, if you're going to use comparisons to support your argument, make them relevant.

[Sage Rat]

But they aren't permanent.

The process to remove them (if the tattoo is in an area where it can be removed) is sufficiently involved and gross that it's not really worth distinguishing.

YouTube -- The Procedure (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRgLUoJdcOU)
YouTube -- After the Procedure (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk_fyb1PSrA)

(Note that this is something you have to go through several times over the course of a month)

[kaylasdad99]

Do you apply this same judgement to pierced ears or circumcision (which is done without the child's wish or desire)?No, I don't, because I've never seen somebody be so shitfaced that they go get their ears pierced. Or circumsised. :eek:

[magellan01]

But if mutilating a male child's genitals (before he can even speak, let alone express a desire to do so) isn't a crime, why should allowing him to get a tattoo be a crime?

:rolleyes: Why didn't you use the cutting of the umbilical cord or him getting assaulted with a slap on his bottom? You are aware that there is a medical reason for circumcision, right?

Unbelievable.

And anyone one who gives a seven-year-old a tatoo is not fit to be a parent and deserves to be in jail for a few years.

[Snowboarder Bo]

:rolleyes: Why didn't you use the cutting of the umbilical cord or him getting assaulted with a slap on his bottom? You are aware that there is a medical reason for circumcision, right?

Unbelievable.

And anyone one who gives a seven-year-old a tatoo is not fit to be a parent and deserves to be in jail for a few years.

<buzzer>

Wrong.

In 1975, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in no uncertain terms that "there is no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision of the newborn." In 1983, the AAP and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) restated this position. In 1999 and again in 2005, the AAP again restated this position of equivocation.

cite (http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/article.htm)

[magellan01]

<buzzer>

Wrong.

cite (http://www.medicinenet.com/circumcision_the_medical_pros_and_cons/article.htm)

I wish people would pay attention to what is written and what the words and sentences mean. I said there was a medical rationale, not that there was absolute medical necessity.

Perhaps now you can point to the medical rationale for giving a seven-year-old a tattoo. And when you can't perhaps you'll see that my critique of your point was correct.

Hope springs eternal.

[Snowboarder Bo]

I wish people would pay attention to what is written and what the words and sentences mean. I said there was a medical rationale, not that there was absolute medical necessity.

Perhaps now you can point to the medical rationale for giving a seven-year-old a tattoo. And when you can't perhaps you'll see that my critique of your point was correct.

Hope springs eternal.

:rolleyes:

Wrong.

There is no compelling medical rationale for the procedure in healthy boys

cite (There is no compelling medical rationale for the procedure in healthy boys): US National Library of Medicine & NIH

Neonatal circumcision is not good health policy, and support for it as a medical procedure cannot be justified financially or medically.

cite (http://www.circumcision.org/studies.htm): Van Howe, R., “A Cost-Utility Analysis of Neonatal Circumcision,” Medical Decision Making 24 (2004):584-601.



When come back, bring facts.

[Guinastasia]

I've never heard of someone losing control of their tattoo and killing people. And unlike a pet, a tattoo does not require years of maintenance and attention.

Please, if you're going to use comparisons to support your argument, make them relevant.


My point is, just because "the child wanted it" isn't a good reason.

[Larry Borgia]

Larry Borgia, I can tell from reading your posts over the years that you are an intelligent person: I KNOW that the man in question did not have his child tattooed with hate speech, profanity or dubious artistic expressions.

The question I asked is, what would you think if he (or anyone else) DID tattoo their children with offensive imagery?There's a style of argument which I see a lot where people build up hypothetical situations which are much worse than whatever really happened and then argue as though the hypothetical was true, instead of what actually hppened.

"Here's a video of someone poking a kitten. Isn't this horrible?"
"Eh, he's just tapping the kitten. The kitten doesn't seem to really notice."
"Well, what if he was stabbing the kitten? Would you support that you cruel bastard!?"

I think letting a little kid get a tatoo is bad parenting, but there's a world of difference between say, a tattoo of a flower on the hip and "I am a retard baby" tatooed on the forehead. You have to deal with the facts of whatever case are brought before you.

I missed that this was a gang sign when I first read the OP, but it still seems like bad parenting, not criminal activity, and still not the equivalent of openly tatooing hate speech on the child.

[pravnik]

I'm against tattooing children solely because they haven't yet developed the judgment to pick one out yet. Had I been allowed to get a tattoo when I was seven, I'd still be sporting my kick-ass Big Bird tattoo.

[MOIDALIZE]

Yes it should be a crime. It should also be a crime to dye your child's hair green, give him a fauxhawk, dress him in an Iron Maiden shirt, or otherwise impose your pathetic lifestyle on a defenseless kid.

[Mojo Pin]

When come back, bring facts.

Let me help you out: circumcision is allowed because people have been doing it for religious reasons for a long time. That's it. It's not rational, but do lawmakers give a shit? And female circumcision is unthinkably savage because it's some other peoples' insane practice.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Sorry to go all JDT, but as long as routine infant circumcision is legal, I can't see the moral or rational grounds for disallowing a small tattoo. It would be one thing if a family disfigured a child in a way that would make them socially excluded, I suppose, and perhaps the gang issues in this case do point more toward some sort of mental abuse like that, but the mere fact of a tattoo? I suppose we should also go after all the families whose baby girls have pierced ears.
My initial reaction was that this was criminal conduct, but as soon as I read your post I changed my mind.

However, mayhem is the stupidest name for a criminal activity ever. Why don't they add a count of aggravated hullaballoo?

[Happy Poster]

Sorry to go all JDT, but as long as routine infant circumcision is legal, I can't see the moral or rational grounds for disallowing a small tattoo. It would be one thing if a family disfigured a child in a way that would make them socially excluded, I suppose, and perhaps the gang issues in this case do point more toward some sort of mental abuse like that, but the mere fact of a tattoo? I suppose we should also go after all the families whose baby girls have pierced ears.

Correct. Both should be illegal. Circumcision is child abuse.

[Taber]

There's a style of argument which I see a lot where people build up hypothetical situations which are much worse than whatever really happened and then argue as though the hypothetical was true, instead of what actually hppened.

"Here's a video of someone poking a kitten. Isn't this horrible?"
"Eh, he's just tapping the kitten. The kitten doesn't seem to really notice."
"Well, what if he was stabbing the kitten? Would you support that you cruel bastard!?"

I think letting a little kid get a tatoo is bad parenting, but there's a world of difference between say, a tattoo of a flower on the hip and "I am a retard baby" tatooed on the forehead. You have to deal with the facts of whatever case are brought before you.

I missed that this was a gang sign when I first read the OP, but it still seems like bad parenting, not criminal activity, and still not the equivalent of openly tatooing hate speech on the child.


Normally I'd agree that the "you can't draw the line precisely, therefore no line should be drawn" argument is fallacious, but I think the question of where the line should be drawn is interesting in this instance. At first glance, I do not really want judges to have to decide that good tasteful tattoos are legal while tasteless tattoos are illegal. From that I'd conclude that something like obscenity laws would be the best to preserve the legality of bad artwork and preventing hate crime tattoos. It does still leave open the door for an abusive parent to aggressively tattoo a kid as a punishment or form of abuse, but I am unsure how that would be proven unless it is very excessive.

[coffeecat]

And female circumcision is unthinkably savage because it's some other peoples' insane practice.Calling it "female circumcision" is misleading. What's usually done is analogous to cutting your son's dick off. (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/464/whats-the-story-with-female-circumcision)

[Markxxx]

Circumcision does have medical uses, tattoos have no purpose except show, so that analogy isn't apt

Circumcised men have lower HIV infection rates, they transmit less STD and such. Of course the primary reason behind this is circumsized penises are easier to keep clean.

So it's not that you couldn't achieve this without circumcision. Of course circumcision goes back centuries as a religious ritual. Courts allow illegal things for religious rituals. Note certain Native American tribes are allowed to use plants that cause hallucinations and such in their native rituals, while banning the use of these plants for recreation.

So the analogy isn't apt. A tattoo isn't part of a religious ritual, it's simply a recreation or decoration. And no gang and club rituals aren't covered because the 1st Amendment protects RELIGION not gang or social clubs.

Furthermore there are lots and lots of temporary solutions. For instance, there are temporary tattoos. There are new methods of tattooing that use special inks that break up under lasers. These tattoos are permenent yet are more easily removed than the traditional tattoo.

[Shagnasty]

Yes it should be a crime. It should also be a crime to dye your child's hair green, give him a fauxhawk, dress him in an Iron Maiden shirt, or otherwise impose your pathetic lifestyle on a defenseless kid.

These people did something similar and they never got charged for it

http://trixiesbeautybar.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/mullet-1958.jpg