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 Dunbal on Wednesday October 21 2015, @09:49AM
What about when the blood bank has to clean up all that contaminated blood. As a blood transfusion recipient I have been given CMV (Cytomegalovirus) and Epstein-Barr virus. Other people have received worse things (like HIV). I guess it's better than dying which is what would have happened if I had not received any blood. But blood banks are supposed to screen blood (and often don't because of the expense). And they are supposed to screen people - so they ask you questions before you donate. Now a person who is donating because they are feeling altruistic is likely to answer those questions honestly. A person donating for cash less so. A person who is donating because they get a reduced fine or sentence will probably lie. Do you have x disease? No. Give me my receipt so I can take it to the judge...
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2015, @10:34AM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday October 21 2015, @11:46AM
A bigger problem is the blood bank/center that sells freely given blood to hospitals, or that charges in any way. This is a big problem locally.
Orgs that give it away have no financial motivation to contaminate the blood bank so they don't. From memory last time I donated they survey the crap out of you and have weird protocols involving bar codes so you can anonymously ask to have your donation destroyed, like if you are the property of an insane judge but know you're not supposed to donate.
The orgs that sell to hospitals per unit have an obvious financial goal to sneak anything past for profit... that can't end well.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Wednesday October 21 2015, @02:30PM
It gets even better when you find out how blood is pooled together so one contaminated sample contaminates the lot. Which means if you're selling you lose even more when you create a bad batch. But hey, Peanut Butter factories have no problem selling you Salmonella, car manufacturers have no problem cheating on emissions tests, what's a few viruses between friends?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @09:43PM
The product liability problem could be solved by simply writing "may contain CMV and/or HIV" on the label, similar to the "processed in a facility that processes tree nuts" warnings we have on food.
Eventually, the Virocap [soylentnews.org] test could be useful here.