The headline in the New York Post:
Teen Says Tattoo Covering Half His Face Is Making It hard to Find Work
You don't say.
The story carries a picture of Mark Cropp, whosesinister tattoo looks like black prison bars, and who was " hoping to find work after his release from prison but said the tattoo that covers half of his face has put off potential employers." The story reports:
A giant tattoo saying “DEVAST8” covers half of his face, and, perhaps not surprisingly, it’s off-putting for potential employers.
As I said, it looked like prison bars to me, but maybe i was reading something of young Cropp's bio into the artwork: Cropp, who lives in Christchurch, New Zealand, got the tatts while behind bars. So the outlandish tattoo is not the only potential turnoff for a would-be employer. Nor are Cropp's actions of the sort that a potential employer might wave aside as youthful indiscretions.
Cropp, who is now free, went to prison for aggravated robbery–seems he and a friend pulled a knife on a tourist. Escaping custody and assault with a weapon were other charges. But he needed the money:
[Cropp] told the [New Zealand] Herald he committed the crime to get enough money to help house himself and his pregnant girlfriend after they were kicked out of his parents’ home.
“My partner Taneia was just a month due to drop my baby, and we had nowhere to go so I committed the crime — and I never got to see [the baby] again.”
Here is what I want to know: did not the "teen" consider in advance that an anti-social tattoo would hinder his getting a job in the world of regular people? Did he even care? For what kind of public assistance will he become eligible if he is unable to find work in the long run?