Call to scrap free removal of criminals' tattoos

Taxpayer-funded removal of criminals' tattoos helps them reoffend and evade capture after they are released, opponents of the scheme say.

Calls are being made for the Corrections Department to scrap the tattoo programme, which runs in Auckland and Waikato and aims to help rehabilitate prisoners.

Gangster John Gillies has had his "Mongrel Mob Forever" tattoo removed from his face during 15 $300 laser sessions paid for by taxpayers, the Dominion Post reported today.

The 34-year-old, one of New Zealand's most dangerous criminals, was convicted of assaulting two policemen and supplying Class A drugs in May last year. He had barely been out of jail a year, after serving 10 years of his 12-year sentence for stabbing former Gisborne police sergeant Nigel Hendrikse with a screwdriver in 1993.

Last Monday, at a Wellington High Court trial, Gillies was acquitted of raping a woman in Hawke's Bay last year.

During the rape trial Gillies told the court the laser treatments on his facial tattoo were done over 2-1/2 years. Remnants of the tattoo remained visible.

Gillies claims to no longer be a patched Mongrel Mob member. However, during the trial he showed the jury a gang-related bulldog tattoo on his torso.

Auckland lawyer David Garrett supports ditching the free tattoo removal, saying the fact Gillies was chosen showed "how stupid and gullible the people that make the decisions are.

"The taxpayer paid between $5000 and $10,000 to help him elude capture -- what a disgrace -- no one forced him to get the tattoo," Mr Garrett said.

"You would be an idiot not to think he did it to evade capture . . . He is an outlaw, he believes the law doesn't apply to him."

National MP Tony Ryall said the scheme was a waste of money.

"There are a lot of good law-abiding people who would love to remove their teenage tattoos but can't afford it," he said.

"Criminals are getting a red carpet to the car as well."

Sensible Sentencing Trust chairman Garth McVicar said criminals like Gillies had already cost the taxpayer enough. He did not believe rehabilitation efforts such as tattoo removal worked.

Canterbury University associate professor of criminology Greg Newbold, a former prison inmate, said it appeared a "bad prediction" was made in the Gillies case.

Dr Newbold said though he supported the tattoo scheme, he believed it should be used only for prisoners at low risk of reoffending.

"I think it is probably a good policy to invest in inmates who show a determination to reform to help them on their way -- I wouldn't do it for everyone, not by any means."

But Dr Newbold said the cost of tattoo removal was insignificant compared with the cost to society of jailing someone repeatedly. It costs $55,000 a year per prisoner.

Most criminals were capable of stopping offending, with 35 the age many turned their lives around, he said.

"People get older and more mature and their values change, they get sick of being in jail -- crime is not so much fun anymore."

Corrections Department public prisons service general manager Phil McCarthy said some inmates had disfiguring tattoos in highly visible parts of their body and removal increased employment prospects and decreased reoffending.

Mr McCarthy said those who had had tattoos removed showed a decrease in reoffending compared with prisoners with visible tattoos.

Prisoners must be on good behaviour in the 12 months before they are accepted on the scheme, and be drug and alcohol-free.

- nzpa