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: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday October 21 2015, @08:49PM
"So in other words, there should be no limits on free speech and it's OK to encourage other people to murder their fellow man as long as you yourself didn't pull the trigger?"
Why would he say this if he didn't want to discuss limits on free speech?
"Take a look at their list of monitored organizations, these are not good people, they're well beyond the boundaries of free speech and keeping an eye on them is a very legitimate anti-terrorist activity."
What does that mean, if not that what they're saying is not protected speech? What does it mean for something to be "well beyond the boundaries of free speech" if not that their speech is illegal? He further goes on to say that keeping an eye on them is a very legitimate anti-terrorist activity. Usually, terrorism is illegal, so that seems to me to be another accusation that their activities are illegal, or at least some of them.
I'm only responding to what I'm reading. If you think there's a more reasonable interpretation, then say so. Just because you're too dumb to look at the specific parts I responded to doesn't make what I said a straw man.