SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Judge:-30-days-or-$100?-Arrestee:-I'll-take-the-$100 dept.
The New York Times is reporting on a disturbing courtroom scene in rural Alabama. A circuit judge apparently required those who owe fines to give blood or face incarceration.
From the article:
“Good morning, ladies and gentlemen,” began Judge Wiggins, a circuit judge here in rural Alabama since 1999. “For your consideration, there’s a blood drive outside,” he continued, according to a recording of the hearing. “If you don’t have any money, go out there and give blood and bring in a receipt indicating you gave blood.”
For those who had no money or did not want to give blood, the judge concluded: “The sheriff has enough handcuffs.”
[...] The dozens of offenders who showed up that day, old and young, filed out of the Perry County courthouse and waited their turn at a mobile blood bank parked in the street. They were told to bring a receipt to the clerk showing they had given a pint of blood, and in return they would receive a $100 credit toward their fines — and be allowed to go free.
[...] On Monday, the Southern Poverty Law Center filed an ethics complaint against Judge Wiggins, saying he had committed “a violation of bodily integrity.” The group also objected to the hearing beyond the matter of blood collection, calling the entire proceeding unconstitutional.
Payment-due hearings like this one are part of a new initiative by Alabama’s struggling courts to raise money by aggressively pursuing outstanding fines, restitution, court costs and lawyer fees. Many of those whose payments are sought in these hearings have been found at one point to be indigent, yet their financial situations often are not considered when they are summoned for outstanding payments.
Is it ethical to require blood donations under any circumstance?
Is the threat of jail for non-compliance (given that, theoretically, we don't have debtor's prison in the U.S.) even constitutional?
Is this a Fourth Amendment issue?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by anubi on Wednesday October 21 2015, @08:53AM
We started off allowing a federal income tax to "pay for the Civil war".
If we tolerate mandatory contributions of parts of one's body ( you will still live sans a pint of blood... you can live on one kidney ), where can this go?
A pint of blood seems minor.
The ramifications of where this can go with "incremental increases" I feel has already been demonstrated of what happened with federal income tax.
Men wearing suits and wielding pens and debt instruments will end up owning everyone.... even down to their bodyparts, called in to repay a debts of money the privileged paper-signers were chartered to print out of thin air. ( Where do the banks get the money to loan? They sure did not have it on deposit! Our hand-shaking Congress drafts banking law to let them simply print up debt instruments so they do not have to pay any interest on people's savings ).
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 4, Informative) by DancesWithRobots on Wednesday October 21 2015, @09:29AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jigsaw_Man [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Funny) by tangomargarine on Wednesday October 21 2015, @09:33AM
Infarction vs. infraction. Can't losing too much blood cause a heart attack?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by anubi on Thursday October 22 2015, @12:58AM
No, it wasn't intentional, but as typos go, it was a good one!
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]