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: 1) by Francis on Wednesday October 21 2015, @02:29PM
I have a very hard time believing that you're a liberal if you're talking about the SPLC like that. That's the kind of thing that the GOP says about the SPLC because it's easier than admitting that they're in bed with hate groups.
If you're going to claim that people and groups are being listed for disagreeing, then you're going to have to cough up some examples. I haven't seen any examples of note. You get a few marginal cases where they're just espousing hateful views and where the purpose of the organization is based on that, but in general, it takes some rationalization to think that a group whose sole purpose is to spread hatred and fear isn't a hate group in need of monitoring.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday October 21 2015, @03:16PM
I'm definitely pretty far left of center, but way to prove my point. I disagree, think SPLC shouldn't be the end all be all of "moral authority", get labeled as a right-wing. Maybe I would vote conservative if the CPC wasn't run by an anti-science nut case that's handed our country over to private industries, but I didn't.
FYI, for starters, I'm Canadian, even our conservatives are more liberal than American democrats. I voted Liberal in our election on Monday, support gay marriage, social assistance, single payer health care and the rights of people to choose and be respected for whatever gender pronouns they want to use. Not that ANY of that is your business or should be any reason to accept or dismiss my opinions on the SPLC.
I simply don't believe in labeling people you disagree with as an excuse to dismiss their arguments. As someone who's been following GamerGate for the last year, which is about exposing shoddy clickbait journalism, I can tell you there are groups that are just disagreeing on the internet that some ultra-left ideologists are trying to put down by any means necessary.
THEY are the embarrassments to liberals and will take anything and twist it into some gender / race / homophobia claim just to have an excuse to dismiss a persons arguments and claims. That's not to say those things AREN'T issues, but they aren't the only issues and certainly not an excuse not to discuss OTHER issues.
There was a point last year where these ideologist tried to have GamerGate listed as a right-wing hate group with the SPLC.
And that's another thing, I might not agree with all "right-wing" politics, but at what point did it become such taboo to have some right leaning beliefs? All the sudden it seems like anyone that's not part of the ultra-left must be a right-wing bigot, and people on the left are forced to constantly reaffirm their left leaning ideals or be dismissed / labeled as part of a hate group.
Why is the left turning into such a cult? It's as bad as the religious right was a decade ago. It's ok not to agree with someone and still listen to them, or agree with them on some points while disagreeing on others. You don't need to call someone a misogynists / racists / homophobe / right-winger to disagree with them.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0, Troll) by Francis on Wednesday October 21 2015, @03:52PM
So in other words, you're a foreigner that doesn't understand the context and would like to pretend like this isn't a serious problem. As far as a rebuttal goes, this one stinks. It just reinforces the notion that you're not a liberal. Or at least not the sort of liberal I've ever encountered. This is some far right bullshit.
Anyways, the SPLC is hardly the sole arbitrator of morality as you seem to put it. They spend their own money keeping tabs on groups that the government won't keep tabs on. The Family Research Council is a good example of a group whose purpose is to spread hatred and misunderstanding with lies that isn't being tracked by the feds, but needs to be. If you wait until groups cross the line from hate speech into actual hate action, that's ridiculous. You'd never know they were there. You have to start monitoring them when they start spreading hateful propaganda. Most of them will probably never engage in terrorist actions, but some of them will and it's important to have them on the radar in case they do.
I'm in favor of free speech, that's why I support monitoring of these groups rather than sending them to prison. But, it's completely insane to suggest that we shouldn't be labeling hate speech and monitoring the groups engaging in it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2015, @03:54PM
LOL, that was quick. Nice to see that the other side has such witty response to the obvious truth.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday October 21 2015, @04:00PM
"So in other words, you're a foreigner that doesn't understand the context"
So in other words, you'll look for any reason you can find to completely ignore people that disagree with you and/or agree with people you don't agree with. I'm guessing had I been like, "HA HA, Ethanol-fueled is such a block head", it wouldn't have mattered what my political leanings or country of origin were, so long as I was agreeing with you.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2015, @08:34PM
I read the post and it reflected a complete lack of understanding of the social construct in which this is happening. I don't comment on the internal policies of Canada because I'm not in a position to understand or appreciate the context within which they are being made.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2015, @04:19PM
> voted Liberal
> support gay marriage
> social assistance
> single payer health care and
> the rights of people to choose and be respected for whatever gender pronouns they want to use
It just reinforces the notion that you're not a liberal.
Yeah, totally doesn't sound like any liberals I know. Normally they vote republican, hate gays, think what you earn over your life time is all you need to retire on, believe the quality of your health care should be directly related to how much money you have and believe trans people are mentally ill.
You totally won the internet there douche wad.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday October 22 2015, @01:57AM
"They spend their own money keeping tabs on groups that the government won't keep tabs on."
That is inaccurate. SPLC is a professional fund raising organization - they don't spend "their own money". They spend money collected from gullible people. In fact, they can be branded as "fraudulent" because they don't spend all that money they rake in. Instead, they maintain lavish homes, offices, lifetyles, and vehicles for the inner clique.
As for keeping an eye on persons and groups which the government is unworried about - especially in this day and age of paranoia and "turrists" behind ever lamp post - that's just wrong. It's like, the Stasi isn't doing good enough a job, SPLC has to second guess the Stasi? Left and right alike has begun to fight back against Homeland Security, but you support SPLC which goes beyond HS efforts? Huh?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @10:37AM
Still waiting to see those examples Francis asked for.