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: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 21 2015, @02:15PM
From the story, it seems that some people felt coerced. The sense of coercion was evident enough that the blood bank discarded the blood given. It seems that a backwoods judge just decided to do this all on his own, without conferring with members of the bar, without guidance from lawmakers. He summoned all these people into his court, and pretty much ordered them to either pay up, or give blood. Whether his exact words truthfully and accurately gave that message is somewhat beside the point. People FELT LIKE they weren't being given a choice.
If you were standing in that court, you may not have felt coerced. I may not have felt coerced either. But - consider who we are talking about here. Some petty criminals. Some just dumb people who have been hammered by administrative procedures they don't understand very well. Probably poorer people. Generally unsophisticated people. They felt intimidated and coerced because a judge said, "Give blood, and you won't go to jail."
Before this kind of thing can be approved, not only must the procedure be considered carefully, but the delivery of the request also needs to be weighed every bit as carefully. People need to understand their rights and obligations to the court, but the court also needs to understand it's authority and obligations.