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This discussion has been archived.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 DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 21 2015, @05:28PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday October 21 2015, @05:28PM (#252840) Journal

    When I click a link described as "authoritarian Ultra-Leftist" I would expect to find an article that actually advocates some sort of policy or position. I didn't.
     
    Instead of a smoking gun I find an article describing "Identitarian" groups that advocates nothing. Is there some point that link is supposed to make?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @10:44AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @10:44AM (#253156)

    Its just a bunch of irrational morons desperately looking for anything to support their pre-defined conclusions and beliefs. There will never be any smoking guns because no such thing exists outside of their heads, and in their heads literally everything the group they hate does is a smoking gun. You can't argue with irrationality, so the best thing to do is not waste your time on them.