You'd be hard-pressed to find a more unfortunate tattoo than the one Jeffrey Chapman, for whatever mysterious reason, found possessed to get at some point in his life. In less than one week, the 32-year-old Kansas man is set to stand trial on first-degree murder charges for the 2011 killing of Damon Galliart. And Jeffrey's concerns extend beyond whatever evidence prosecutors have against him -- one look at the enormous "murder" tattoo he has spelled backwards around his neck and you can understand why he's terrified that members of the jury will make up their minds about him before lawyers even begin to state their cases.
Jeffrey has a request that he believes is totally reasonable and fair: he'd like to have his tat removed prior to his appearance in court. But not everyone agrees it's within his right to have this done.
Jeffrey hasn't been denied his request -- not exactly, at least. But there's a major conflict here: under Kansas state law, a tattoo must be removed by a licensed tattoo expert at that person's place of business. The artist can't be brought to Jeffrey's cell and Jeffrey can't be transported from his cell. So, basically, this isn't happening anytime soon unless a judge agrees to let them work around the law.
Perhaps you're thinking what I was -- wear a turtleneck and call it a day. But the suspect's lawyer argues that his ink is way too large to be concealed by clothing.
You could say the suspect doesn't deserve to have his tattoo removed because no one forced him to have "murder" forever etched into his skin, and well, what the heck was he thinking? But we should remember that this man is innocent until proven guilty and that, if we're being honest here, most jurors will prejudge him based on this ridiculous tattoo.
Allowing his body to be marked in this way may speak volumes about his character -- or not -- but this is irrelevant. A jury's decision should be based solely on his actions -- nothing more. As long as the suspect is paying to have his tattoo removed and not relying on taxpayers' money, I believe the rules should be bent to allow him to have "murder" removed from his neck.
Here's a short clip featuring Jeffrey's attorney:
See this video on The Stir by CafeMom.
Do you think Jeffrey should be allowed to have his controversial tattoo removed before his murder trial?
Image via YouTube