William Joyce
Chemotherapy for PC
The FACT he is a skinhead is relevant all by itself as are the tattoos.
How is this relevant.
The guard wouldn't be less dead if a hispanic nun was accused.
Being a skinhead is the source of WHY he was in prison to begin with. His beliefs on race and people are the most likeley source of why he murdered the Guard. HE chose FREELY to presnet those Tattoos as WHO he is by putting them WHERE they are. A jury has every right and need to see who this person is and how he thinks.
Brother, you're making the case for the defense as you speak. First, how do you know that his being a skinhead (or whatever) was "the source" of his imprisonment? Second, you declare
A) that he did, in fact, kill the guard and
B) that you know his being a "skinhead" was why he did it.
You have your assumptions and conclusions stacked so high, one wonders why you're even agreeing to a trial for the man!
I get that everyone's excited about him being stuck with controversial marking that he did, in fact, get voluntarily. I don't know how I'd rule on the tattoo coverings if I were a judge.
But there is something in the law called "prejudice", and it's not (necessarily) about race. It means "making a decision based on the wrong information." It's not necessarily bad human reasoning, but it's disfavored by the law. And sometimes it's not that it's untrue... it's that it's TOO true. It's why they don't allow prosecutors to say "Defendant X has been convicted of this same crime three times before." The fear is that jurors will sloppily say, "well, then, he must be guilty of this fourth one, too." Problem is, we don't charge people with the crime of "being a bad person", we charge them with a specific act. We want jurors to focus on the evidence that makes it more or less likely he committed that particular act. And yes, it's a little elitist, because the law is essentially saying it doesn't fully trust jurors to be mature.