According to court testimony, Eugene Ashley, 26, was arrested in 2009 after the Department of Family and Children Services made a home visit and saw the letters “DB” tattooed on the child’s shoulder.
It is illegal in Georgia to tattoo a child younger than 18.
The boy was three at the time, but District Attorney Leigh Patterson said the tattooing had occurred a year prior.
Ashley told police at the time of his arrest that “DB” stood for “Daddy’s Boy.”
Patterson called the crime egregious and said the child told DFCS the tattoo hurt. But she also said it would have been impossible to go to a jury with the case because of the victim’s age.
“I don’t know if we would be able to elicit a testimony from a child,” Patterson said.
Ashley’s arrest made national headlines two years ago and sparked debate and lit up the blogosphere as one blogger compared tattooing to ear piercing or circumcision.
Judge Tami Colston, who heard the case Monday, still had questions about the statute that makes tattooing a child illegal.
“I am trying to figure out why this is illegal,” she questioned in the courtroom. “Is it illegal to pierce your little girl’s ears?”
The state statute created in 1981 does not make it illegal to pierce a child’s ears, Patterson said.
http://www.dreamindemon.com/2011/04/07/man-fined-300-for-tattooing-toddler-while-drunk/
I'm embarrassed by this judge. And she didn't have to think is the statute legal unless someone questioned the statute. She was just being a smart ass at someone else's expense---the child---the county citizens!
http://www.dreamindemon.com/2011/04/07/man-fined-300-for-tattooing-toddler-while-drunk/
I'm embarrassed by this judge. And she didn't have to think is the statute legal unless someone questioned the statute's constitutionality! She was just being a smart ass at someone else's expense---the child---the county citizens!
This judge thought aloud (which judges are supposed to do) about the apparent inconsistencies between when it is legal to wilfully injure your child (circumcision, piercing) and when it is not (tatooing).
This is a completely arbitrary cultural law. We allow a newborn baby to be strapped down, have skin cut off his penis, a very sensitive area, and then go through several weeks of recovery, which, when done improperly, can result in re-circumcision or other painful corrective measures. And it is unclear whether circumcision has anything other than cultural/cosmetic effects on the child.
But when it comes to tatooing, which probably only hurts during the process and a couple of days afterward, suddenly everyone is up in arms.
Regardless of which side of this cultural law you take, you cannot fault a judge for considering the consistency and harmony of a statute within the overall body of law that governs this state. It's her job.
As for the tattoo dad, I too know him, he did wrong, but, he has paid a heavy price as well as his children for this atrocious mistake he made. He as complied with everything asked of him by the courts and will continue to. His son loves him very much, and contrary to what another poster here has said, the child actually likes his tattoo, not that it makes any difference, but he does like it. He doesn't like the bad attention it gets him though, he understands that the tattoo is why he hasn't lived with his family for a while.
I agree though with Tammi, I don't see any difference in this or putting a child through ear piercing, I wouldn't do either.
And I agree, he would have received a harsher sentence for cruelty to animals.
People should have to pass a psych exam and an IQ test before procreating. And apparently before becoming a judge.