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.
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”?
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.”
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)
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.
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?
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.