When Mohawks are a Crime of Fashion

Please note Ringo M.K. Bosley, Esq. uses AI only as a tool in assisting with research and marketing, and all posts and images on Legally Absurd are written and created by a living-breathing-person.

Hey folks!

Today’s absurd legal question comes from a friend, who I find very dear to me. He asks:

Is it legal for a judge to give someone a mohawk as punishment for a crime?

I do not believe that my friend meant that the Judge would literally be the one giving the convicted person a Mohawk (or cutting their hair). So, this might be rephrased as “Does a judge have the power to order that someone, who has been convicted of a crime, MUST regularly appear before a barber/hairstylist and pay for them to maintain a mohawk style for a period of time?” First, we need to determine what a punishment is.

What can punishment for a crime legally be?

To answer this question, we must look towards the U.S. Constitution at our rights as they were provided. Then to the interpretation of this from certain case law of how it was addressed. We will find that there is a reason this has never been tried before.

1. It CANNOT be cruel and unusual:

The 8th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment."1

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

We have a general understanding what “cruel” might be, and case law helps us determine more specifically what it is. “Cruel” punishments are excessively harsh, degrading, or disproportionate to the crime committed. “Unusual” might be a little harder to understand; they are punishments that are contrary to long usage or tradition of rights.2 3

A mohawk is not necessarily cruel, although it could be if it was considered degrading enough. It will also depend on the crime that this person was convicted of. If it was a charge where the degradation was proportional to the crime that they are convicted of, it would likely not be considered cruel.

However, a mohawk is “unusual” because it is the opposite or not at all the same as typical punishments used for crimes. A typical punishment might end up being probation and no time incarcerated at all, and this usually includes restrictions or requirements like: paying a fine, completing community service, completing a rehabilitative program, etc. Now, someone might get a mohawk as a part of this journey through probation, but it would not be required. Thus, our mohawk would likely be considered an “unusual punishment”.

We can say that a Judge ordering a mohawk as punishment would likely be a violation of the 8th Amendment. However, there are no legal cases that directly answer this question, so we cannot be certain. There are other matters we can consider to get a better answer…

Disclaimer: The information provided in this publication post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This content is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. You should consult with a qualified attorney in your jurisdiction regarding any specific legal issue or concern.

Thanks for reading Legally Absurd! This post is public so feel free to share it.

2. It CANNOT be discriminatory:

The Fourteenth Amendment provides the following:

… No State shall make or enforce any law which shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…

A state’s actions (a judge’s actions) can be deemed as violating the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when it is discriminatory. It would be considered discriminatory when it disproportionately affects certain individuals or cultural groups more than another. The 1st Amendment also raises protections for cultural or religious practices. So, a Judge discriminating based on cultural or religious practices would lay the foundation needed to rule the judge’s actions a violation of the 14th and 1st Amendments.4

You might guess where I am going with this…

A mohawk might prevent someone from being able to wear certain hair or head pieces because your hair has to stick up for it; this prevents certain individuals from being able to wear what is required for their religion or culture. Ordering a mohawk would disproportionately affect certain individuals or cultural groups, raising grounds under Equal Protection to challenge a judge from ordering a mohawk for punishment of a crime.

3. It MUST be established law:

Lastly, the one way we truly know this is not allowed is this part. Laws usually outline the punishments for each crime in each state. They usually provide a degree of the crime, and each degree has a punishment range to consider for sentencing. For example, in Texas the crime of Aggravated Robbery is a 1st Degree Felony5, which can have a punishment of anywhere between 5 years to 99 years incarcerated and a fine of anywhere between zero dollars and $10,0006.

Judges have general discretion in sentencing, but only between choices from established law.7 Punishments like fines, imprisonment, and probation are typical or established law. Using the same example above, a judge then has discretion to choose the lowest incarceration time, only 15 years incarcerated, or any number between 5 and 99 years, and even can sentence to no fine at all. For certain crimes (usually non-violent), they can also sentence to probation or no incarceration time at all.8

Following all of this, we can clearly see that a mohawk is not established law for punishment of a crime, so a Judge could not order it.

The Nitty Gritty:

A mohawk as punishment could be argued as unusual and potentially degrading, violating the 8th Amendment.
Ordering a specific hairstyle as punishment could end up being discriminatory or biased, depending on the person; a violation of the 14th Amendment.
A mohawk is not a standard or legally recognized form of punishment that a Judge could order.

All that to say, if a judge ordered a mohawk as a punishment, it would be a crime of fashion.

Thanks for reading!
~ Ringo

Do you have any questions about this post?