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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by Vanderhoth on Wednesday October 21 2015, @04:00PM

    by Vanderhoth (61) on Wednesday October 21 2015, @04:00PM (#252812)

    "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
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2015, @08:34PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 21 2015, @08:34PM (#252912)

    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.