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, Interesting) by RedGreen on Wednesday October 21 2015, @10:57AM
"It's unprecedented - a judge out to know better than to attempt such things."
No history knowledge at all, there used to the old join the army or go to jail sentencing IMHO way worse than this would ever be...
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2015, @06:22PM
I had a buddy in the Army that while he wasn't told to join the army or go to jail, it was implied that he would be allowed to join the army in lieu of jail.
He had already started the process to join, and being sent to jail would have borked that possibility. Even he agreed, the army was a much better choice then jail, and last I knew he was doing a good job keeping his nose clean. He just needed a bit of direction. In fact I think a lot of people who are going to jail for low level stuff should be give the option of Army/Marines bootcamp instead. About 6 months of that can do a lot to straighten out some poor youthful attitudes, and give you the self confidence to accomplish something.
(Score: 2) by RedGreen on Wednesday October 21 2015, @11:54PM
Yeah well that is same shit different pile as far as I am concerned implied/instructed to do is same thing.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen