Scientists link tattoos to crime

[Cheyenne]

Scientists link tattoos to crime

BY MARK HENDERSON, SCIENCE CORRESPONDENT

ADOLESCENTS with tattoos are much more likely than other teenagers to be involved with drugs, alcohol or even gang violence, an American study has disclosed.
A tattoo provides a “visible cue” that a teenager might get involved in such behaviour, scientists at the University of Rochester in New York State said. The link, which emerged from a study of 6,072 people aged between 11 and 21 from
across the US, remained after results were adjusted for socio-economic factors, gender, age and peer-group pressure.

Timothy Roberts, a pediatrician at the University of Rochester Children’s Hospital who led the study, reported the results at the annual conference of the American Academy of Paediatrics in Baltimore, Maryland, yesterday.

“A tattoo is a sign that doctors, parents, teachers ought to be asking about the teenager’s behaviour,” he said. It would, however, be wrong to suggest that it increases the chances of irresponsible behaviour or to use it as a basis of discrimination, he added.

Tattooed teenagers were almost four times as likely as their peers to have had sex, 2.7 times as likely to be gang members, and about twice as likely to abuse drugs, alcohol or cigarettes, or to have taken part in a recent fight.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-121907,00.html

Any remote possibility of truth to this article?

[Edited by Cheyenne on 04-30-2001 at 09:59 PM]

 

[Angel]

Yes, I am a psychotic criminal slut who is addicted to crack.




(Just teasing you Chey)


I think it's bullshit though.

 

[CoolCucumber]

Yes, I am a psychotic criminal slut who is addicted to crack.




(Just teasing you Chey)


I think it's bullshit though.

Wow! I think I would have picked up on all of that if you were!!! LOL
-CoolCucumber

 

[Cheyenne]

Didn't seem quite right to me either, knowing how many people at Lit have tats.

 

[Flagg]

You know I've been trying to pinpoint the reason or motivation behind that lil 'ol massacre phase of mine and I do believe you may have come up with an answer...

Seriously though - is this even worth discussing?

 

[Cheyenne]

Seriously though - is this even worth discussing?

So where are all the interesting threads you've started lately, Flagg? Got something better to discuss? Post it! We're all waiting ...

 

[Ally C]

I wonder if it ever crossed the researchers' minds that they may have got their findings mixed up? Perhaps adolescent criminals are more likely to adorn themselves with tattoos, rather than the tattoos 'meaning' that those with them are more likely to commit crimes? Strange that the disclaimer that it would "be wrong to suggest that ... [tattoos] ... increases the chances of irresponsible behaviour or to use ... [tattoos] as a basis of discrimination" detracts so much from any tangible message that it goes without saying that the only message is that there isn't one! Well, that's not strictly true; the only message is what we extrapolate from such researched and rehearsed outbursts. The following alternative:

University researchers are more likely to observe and try to interpet social phenomena and draw conslusions than non researchers, who aren't concerned with research grants for the study of drugs, alcohol or even gang violence, this impromptu research related study now discloses.

A reseach body provides so-called "visible cues" through the use of 'transparent' research techniques, scientists at the University of Rochester in New York State did not say. Any links, which emerge from a study of (for example) 6,072 people aged between 11 and 21 from across the US, which remain after results were adjusted for socio-economic factors, gender, age and peer-group pressure, should be taken with a pinch of salt.

It would, however, be wrong to suggest that research increases the chances of irresponsible behaviour or to use it as a basis of discrimination, it should be added.

Researchers were almost four times less likely as their peers to have had sex, 2.7 times as likely to be published writers, and about twice as likely to abuse drugs, alcohol or cigarettes, or to have taken part in a recent televised debate.

 

[Cheyenne]

Strange that the disclaimer that it would "be wrong to suggest that ... [tattoos] ... increases the chances of irresponsible behaviour or to use ... [tattoos] as a basis of discrimination" detracts so much from any tangible message that it goes without saying that the only message is that there isn't one! [/i]

Maybe the media picked it up to try to make a message where there was never one intended?

 

[Ally C]

Yes

That sounds about right. I do wonder if said 'media' intends to make most if not all research seem like research for research's sake. You know what I mean, I'm sure. Most times when we read such articles it seems that (again, most if not all) findings are either extremely obvious or extremely doubtful. Or is that just something which we (or at least I) read into such things habitually?

 

[Ally C]

Having said that ...

... I still wonder what benefit research has when it warily frames itself in such non-controversial wording [i.e. it would "be wrong to suggest that ... [tattoos] ... increases the chances of irresponsible behaviour or to use ... [tattoos] as a basis of discrimination"]? Not that controversy is necessary, just that the choice of words does seriously undermine any meaningful gains from this particular example. Are there any?

 

[Flagg]

Cheyenne

(Shh! I've just been trying to get all the refugees to come back under the pretence that all is harmonious on the General Board!)

So anyway. Yeah Cheyenne, fascinating thread. Gee isn't this all just so fun! Golly Whizz, I'm having such a fascinating time!