Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday October 21 2015, @08:15AM   Printer-friendly
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?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday October 21 2015, @02:18PM

    by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday October 21 2015, @02:18PM (#252750)

    I don't see any anti-Jewish groups listed.

    Then you didn't read the list you linked to, because there are whole sections on Holocaust deniers and neo-Nazis, both of which any reasonable person would see as anti-Jewish. In addition, many KKK branches are anti-Jewish and some are anti-Catholic.

    There is a whole list of Catholic organizations

    And a bunch of Protestant organizations (again, the KKK falls into that). And I should point out that the Catholic organizations listed definitely do not have the sanction of most of the Catholic Church hierarchy - these groups formed because they saw the Catholic Church as too tolerant, because apparently "Love thy neighbor" isn't part of their version of Christianity.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday October 21 2015, @02:35PM

    by Francis (5544) on Wednesday October 21 2015, @02:35PM (#252768)

    Indeed, the SPLC does good work in an area that's really tough to monitor.

    I'm not surprised that people get taken in by these hate groups as the membership tends to skew smart. They have some rather sophisticated arguments about why what they're doing is not just not bigoted, but why you'd be an idiot not to join their bigoted cause. It's not surprising that people wouldn't notice these groups anymore or wouldn't agree with the classification, you can't get away with burning crosses on people's lawns or lynching them anymore because society recognizes such overt activities as deeply problematic.