a judgehas ordered an individual, a defendant, standing trial tocover his tattoos in order to receive a fair trial. take aquick look at the person in question. you get a sense of whythe tattoo should be covered. he has a teardrop, which indicateshe was in prison before, or that he’s killed someone.
you have anazi sign on his face as well. >>it’s hard to see, it is aswastika inside a clover. >>okay, it looked like a clover. >> before choosing who thejurors would be in this case, by the way, he is accused of hideous things. he is accused ofstealing a man to motorcycle at gunpoint. he also faces thedeath penalty in a different
case. receive a fair trial. take aquick look at the person in question. you get a sense of whythe tattoo should be covered. he he’s killed someone. you have anazi sign on his face as well. hideous things. he is accused ofstealing a man to motorcycle at gunpoint. he also faces thedeath penalty in a different case. he is accused of killing aa 75 year old woman days before that robbery. the judge wants to makesure he gets a fair trial. jurors where saying they would
be unable to be unbiased if theysaw tattoos on the face. now every day before he stands trial he needs to have it covered. aprofessional makeup artist covers it up, which i think isthe right way to go. you want everyone to havea fair trial. >>i don’t agree. you have theliberal position. this brings me back to why i was a conservative in law school. do we trust thejury or not? we would have them do make up in front of a judge,
sometimes you will have a jurytrial and sometimes a defendant will want a trial by judge. wewould never do the make up for the judge, because we trust him.the jury we think our bunch of knuckleheads, so we have to do the make up on the guy. then don’t do jury trials if youthink they are all stupid. but i don’t think theyare stupid. by the way, i also think that aswastika on your face is indicative of something.
it doesn’t mean you did thatbank robbery. >> stop, i disagree. people makestupid decisions in their lives and get stupid ã± that is by farone of the stupidest decisions anyone could make, putting aswastika on your face is idiotic. however, you can’t usehis tattoo as a way of deciding whether or not he is guilty of adifferent crime, or if he is guilty of stealing a motorcycle,or killing a 75-year-old woman. if he did it, i want to broughtto justice. i’m not trying to do him any favors. the reality is,whether you trust individuals
are not people are easilypersuaded by the way someone looks. if he has tattoos likethat, jurors are going to focus more on that and it is going to bias them. i disagree with you.i want a fair trial. >>i have to clarify something.i’m not saying i see a swastika on a guys face and i say guilty. >> you don’t think that way, buta lot of people think that way. >> if he has a swastika, then he
at least is pretending to hate a lot of people. by the way, wealso don’t share with the jury all the past crimes a. the judgegets to see all of that. if i have a decision with someone, i want the background. i don’tthink ã± it does mean that it is part of my decision-making process as it should be. to saythat this angel was dropped on this earth here, ispreposterous. >>no one is saying that. you needcontext relating to the charges
against him. people make stupiddecisions throughout their lives. what if he got thatridiculous tattoo and it turns out he completely changed. >>like in american history x. >>they would have at trial andpresent that evidence, and that i would rule the other way. >> a couple of points, one ithink the saying that the standard that a jury couldtheoretically be biased, so what is the difference. i think ajudge receives training to weed
that out. but i do think if i saw someone and i saw someonewith facial tattoos i would assume he did it too. peopleeven vote for candidates that are more attractive or taller. >> that’s what bernie did sowell in this election. >>his hair as a couple ofinches. the problem is it is a slippery slope. we have identified swastika tattoos assomething that identifies you as a criminal. but also the jury islater on more attractive
defendants. why do we putmakeup on everyone? >> that makes it really toughwhen you think about all the other subtle implicit biasesthat affect juries. there are tons of them. we have studiesthat can identify some. should we try to correct all of them?i don’t know. >>here is why, race. >>so should we put whitepowder on a black-eyed? >>maybe they shouldn’t see thedefendant at all. >>the problem with your argumentis that guy is guilty.
i don’t know if you sawthat picture? >>what if it is not a swastika,or itãs a kitten on his cheek? you can play with these little things. itãs a slippery slope. >>you are asking us to suspendnormal human common sense. if he had a tear in the shape of a kitten, and he was accused ofkilling kittens, that is kind of relevant. i am a human being, ican make that decision. but if you think i can’t make that
decision, then don’t let me.just let the judges decide. but we can assume the jury isdumber than the judge, otherwise we should havea system. >> you know what? i might getheat for this, i think the jury is dumber than the judge. i wasa juror, i am dumber than the judge. people are prone toprejudice and biases based on the appearance of someone. raceis something that someone cannot help. the idea of powderingsomeone to make them look light is ridiculous. but somethinglike a tattoo could’ve been a
really terrible decision someonemade earlier in their life, and they could’ve been a changedperson. it is unfair regardless of the person’s race. all thoseother factors don’t matter to me. i just want to make sure that wedo what’s necessary to have an unbiased jury so someone canstand a fair trial. that is what i want. >> i will give you the worstexample. i understand what you are saying, and there is a lotof ignorance of the world.
doesn’t mean they are stupid, itjust means that they didn’t get a great education, and the judge too. he has seen the context ina lot of cases both in his experience and in lawsuit. thejury might not have that context, which is important. ithink it is a legitimate debate as to whether we should havejury trials are not. part of the reason why i like it is thatoftentimes a jury has a perspective, that a judge doesn’t. the worst example iwould give is the oj case. in my
opinion, oj was guilty. i think they made the wrong decision.but it is entirely possible that a case like that, the jury thatwas made up primarily of african americans would have a different perspective of how the policetreat african-americans in los angeles or other big cities andsometimes do plant evidence. the judge would not have that perspective. in the case of oj,i think he was guilty, this is a terrible example. but i’m surethere have been several cases
where the jury would be more right than the judge. and so that perspective is alsoimportant because i like jury trials, but that is not aneasy question. >>i don’t have a problemwith jury trials. i just want to make sure wedon’t do anything that influences the jury and givethem a bias that would work against the defendant.