Child's tattoo: disfigurement or poor parenting?

Enrique Gonzalez wanted his 7-year-old son to have a gang tattoo, like the many that adorn his own body. About that there is no dispute.

The question that a judge says she will decide Friday is whether placing a tattoo on a minor is a permanent and painful disfigurement worthy of the potential life sentence that comes with a mayhem conviction, or is it something less?

Are there other procedures children routinely undergo that are decidedly more painful and permanent?

apnews.excite.com...

So, I have some tattoos, but I was 30 before I got them. Occasionally I have the internal debate about whether or not I regret them, but overall they were and still are meaningful. But, I would never encourage a young child to get a tattoo, let alone a gang tattoo! This is definitely criminal in my opinion. But then, I see where it could carry a life sentence? That is horrendous as well!

So, as usual, we are left to debate whether or not the government has the right to interfere in how we raise our children. Tattoos seem pretty clear cut, but as the article states, there are many questionable medical procedures that are just as painful and permanent! (Think Circumcision, or Wisdom Tooth removal!)

Then we are left to debate if the punishment fits the crime? Life in prison for a questionable parenting tactic? Seems pretty Draconian to me, but this is a gang banger with other crimes and issues. Still, if we allow it for him, then it becomes allowable for the rest of us!

So, this article seems outrageous from all sides. I can't believe it happened, I can't believe the guy is facing life in prison for it, and I can't believe that the journalist and court system sees it in such a black and white manner!

Thoughts?

[edit on 1-10-2009 by getreadyalready]

[edit on 1-10-2009 by getreadyalready]

That poor kid will always have a gang tattooed on his body because his dad was a moron.

Imagine how much pain that poor kid was in.

Life in prison just for torturing the poor boy.

It's permanent disfigurement. "Working-class branding."

Inking a childs skin pretty much sets them on a specific path through life. Sure, they can get off of it and onto another path but that brand proves a mighty powerful anchor.

But in this specific case. Of a gang tattoo and an obvious gang family. Let them do whatever the hell they want. That entire bloodline will be dead by 30 or in prison so who cares. The life of that child is already 80% certain to be a complete waste. The best we can hope for is that it dies early before it can case harm to others by means of violent criminal activity.

Originally posted by jd140
That poor kid will always have a gang tattooed on his body because his dad was a moron.

Imagine how much pain that poor kid was in.

Life in prison just for torturing the poor boy.

I think a Gang tattoo should carry a little more weight than a butterfly or something, because it could potentially get him killed in middle school, or at a playground! Plus all the pain, there is no doubt the guy is a moron!

But, life in prison? And, allowing the court to decide what is right and wrong for our own kids? Seems awfully similar to these controversial vaccines! Also, what if they decide Circumcision is too painful or permanent, or on the other hand, what if they decide it is necessary and required!

I am leaning toward making this a crime for a tattoo artist to work on a minor, even with a parent's approval, but I don't see how we can go after somebody after the fact? It was legal when they did it.

If this is "Child Endangerment," then so is football, and baseball, and riding a school bus! There are always foreseeable dangers, and parents make judgement calls on what is acceptable, and what is not.

My daughter wanted the symbol of the Tarakians tattooed on the back of her neck since she was 3. She's wanted Elven Ears since she was 7. At age 12 she now wants Corset Piercings. I've told her that she has to wait until she's 18 for all of those...and she is resolute as her desire has not waned or changed through the passing years. However, it totally bothers me that it would be considered Criminal to allow my daughter any of these things as a minor.

And you are right, there is little difference between allowing your child to get their ears pierced (which they can do at any Mall and almost every Store throughout America) and getting a tattoo. There is little difference between getting their Wisdom Teeth or Tonsils removed and allowing them to get Elven Ears.

This is about as ridiculous as making it a Felony to pierce a cat's ears as has been done for thousands of years, although it's perfectly legal to Brand a cow or pierce and Tag any other animal!

Thank you for bringing this up. Just because it is a Gang-related symbol shouldn't matter. The core of this case has to do with whether or not it should be a parent's right to decide whether their child can receive minor cosmetic surgical procedures such as ear-piercings or tattoos...which should not be illegal for a parent to decide for their child.

reply to post by getreadyalready



Marking a kid for life with a gang tattoo is no differant in my eyes then beating him.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I see your point, but my Dad came from a family of criminals, and all of his brothers wound up in jail, and he is a Business Consultant and Accountant, and successful business owner. Both of his kids went to college. My brother is in a Graduate school.

The tattoo will certainly limit this kids opportunities, and endanger his life. But the same can be said for many "Ghetto" names, or choices of schools, or choices of religions, or lifestyles. So, do we really want somebody other than the parents monitoring this stuff?

I wouldn't allow anyone to get my daughter's ears pierced until I thought she was old enough to make that decision on her own. I'm no fan of having a permanent mutilation done to your child to feed your own ego.

'look at my baby boy! Isn't he cute with the Mohawk and ear rings and tattoos? Honey, it's your turn to change his diaper.'

It DOES bring up the argument about parents rights when it comes to the bodies of their children. But really?

"Son....did you even LOOK for a job today?!?"

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b370c357ebd7.jpg[/atsimg]

"Yeah, Dad, but those bastards are just slaves to the system! They just don't UNDERSTAND me! I didn't wanna work at freakin' mcdonalds anyway."

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/32bcd657b67d.jpg[/atsimg]

reply to post by fraterormus

The core of this case has to do with whether or not it should be a parent's right to decide whether their child can receive minor cosmetic surgical procedures such as ear-piercings or tattoos...which should not be illegal for a parent to decide for their child.

Kudos for you on sticking to your guns with your daughter! My father did the same with me, and at 18 I didn't want the tattoo nearly as much as I did at 15 and 16! I am so glad I don't have a flaming baseball or tasmanian devil like all of my friends were getting!

You also bring up a whole new can of worms! What about "cosmetic" surgery? Breast Augmentation is routinely done on Teenagers that aren't even fully developed yet! It changes everything for a girl in a crucial time of her life. My wife was 29 when she got this, and even she wasn't ready for the added attention, or the pain and recovery of the surgery!

Some unfortunate girls desperately need nose or lip surgery to correct something, while others just want it to be a little more popular or land a lead in the school play! How can the law differentiate better than a parent?

Again, the gang-banger is a moron, and a bad parent in my opinion, but when we take his right to decide, we also take mine!

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by thisguyrighthere

 

So, do we really want somebody other than the parents monitoring this stuff?

I am happy to have a quick answer to this question.
Yes.

reply to post by getreadyalready


I think life in prison is a bit harsh, but definitely something. I like to think laws are black and white, but that is why we have judges and it does upset me when judges think they are black and white and don't simply use common sense, so I agree that that journalist is a bit off his rocker too. I'm always a bit conflicted when it comes to interpreting the law. Should it be interpreted? Should we simply use common sense? Should it be black and white?

I usually think common sense is the best way, but then again, some of these judges have no common sense and in those cases I want the law to be like stone! Unfortunately whatever this judge decides will probably be set as precident and from then on we will be able to be prosecuted for piercing our daughter's ears and such. Leave it to a dumba$$ gangbanger to ruin it for all of us.

Very interesting dilemma. Good Catch, Good Post!


[edit on 1-10-2009 by memarf1]

Originally posted by getreadyalreadySo, do we really want somebody other than the parents monitoring this stuff?

No. I dont want the courts or popular opinion dictating to me how I should run my life or how my children should be raised.

But people are free to judge and voice their opinions.

I'll call this guy a jackass and express that I have little faith this child will be more than a blood stain on a sidewalk somewhere but I wouldnt support some legislation or government worker coming in and interfering with their failure. Nor would I want any legislation or government worker coming to support them when the garbage life they have coming sets them up to be homeless, penniless junkies with hep-C.

To say "sucks for that kid" is where it should end. Let life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness play out for this family as it will.

A sort of 'prime directive' approach.

reply to post by KSPigpen

'look at my baby boy! Isn't he cute with the Mohawk and ear rings and tattoos? Honey, it's your turn to change his diaper.'

Hey, my 3 year old has a Mohawk! (More of a Marine cut) His Momma and grandmommas weren't too happy, but luckily it grows back in a week or two!

Great Pics btw!

I totally agree with you, and that is why I think they should be adults to decide this on their own, but even adults mess this up! I had a mechanic working for me that got full sleeves of tattoos (against my advice), and he also started community college (at my urging). At about 24 years old, he had a chance to become a service manager with a nice salary and benefits and easier workload, but guess what kept him out of the job!

I was in the parking lot one days at Lowe's, and I overheard two young women talking, one with about a 12 month old baby. She was telling her friend that she and her husband were having the baby tatooed, and she was headed to her doctor's office to pick up a statement, as the tatoo artist was requiring this before he would do it.

The doctor had quizzed her she said, but decided he would give the "okay" if that's really what they wanted to do. She and her husband had the same one, and they wanted the baby to have one too.

I thought it was odd, and I wouldn't do it, but then again, I thought it was none of my beeswax. Which it isn't, you know?

The doctor obviously didn't think it would be a medical issue, so that leaves what? A moral issue? As we are well aware, we can't legislate morality, and I hope we don't start interfering in people's rights, like is being done here.....

It's not ours to decide.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Well. It depends really.

A gang tattoo? Yeah I think its fair to call it a disfigurement.

But what if it were a religious practice? Like getting a certain tattoo on an arm would be the same as being baptized.

reply to post by ladyinwaiting


Well, I think the possibility of sentencing his child to at the very least a life of hardships deserves a bit more consideration. It shouldn't be about the tattoo itself, but maybe the specific tattoo he purchased for the kid. This guy harmed his child with the future issues the kid will now be faced with, so should definitely be punished. It isn't a moral issue requiring legislation, it is a violation of this kids basic human rights. This father instantly removed this kids ability to pursue happiness in the same manner the rest of us can. A gang tattoo? Really?? I could keep going, but I'm getting frustrated... It's not about the tattoo(Stupid in itself), its about WHICH tattoo(EVEN STUPIDER!).

While I dont agree with children getting tattoos and would hit the roof if my own kids came home with one, I respect the right of this man to get his kid a tattoo if that is how he wants to raise his child. We need to butt out of others peoples lives. It isnt like he beat the child, and i would bet it was his way of showing love to his child. He just values things differently than most people.

Originally posted by SquishyFishy
... It isnt like he beat the child, and i would bet it was his way of showing love to his child. He just values things differently than most people.

Yeah, he didn't beat his child, he just insured someone else would try. He was just showing love to his child by helping him "Jump" in one day. He just values things differently than most people, like the things gangs represent, Brotherhood, Violence, Drugs, Protection, you know the good stuff.

Take a look at this video. About 2 minutes in they start talking about the traditional scarification of children's faces within this tribe. Later on in the video they actually show it so if you don't want to see that sort of thing, stop watching at about 3:20



Why is it O.K. for this culture to do this to their children, but it is not O.K. for this guy to have a tattoo put on his child?

Is it because this guy is living in a "civilized" society and must conform? Are the tribal parents let off the hook because they are still considered "savages"? (please note the quotation marks and what they imply)

Regardless of whether or not we like it (the gang) or feel that it is part of the problem, is it not their culture? Who are you to say that this child will not grow up to be proud of what his father gave him, much like I am proud of the family coat of arms that my grandfather painted and passed down to me?

reply to post by KSPigpen


Now these photos are just Sad. The first one, see how dilated his eyes are? Got a little drug problem happening...... and the second guy? That anger and hatred you see in his eyes? It's directed towards himself. Yep. Self-hatred.

Here I question the morality of anybody who would continue to take money from them, the second guy in particular, and continue to contribute to his self mutilation and mental illness. Sigh.