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: 4, Insightful) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday October 21 2015, @10:33PM
The fact that you consider them to be extreme left-wing speaks more about your own biases than theirs.
No, that's bullshit. They are extreme left-wing. To quote:
Seriously, look at the list, with a few possible exceptions, these are not organizations that are just having a disagreement with the SPLC, these are people that are actively encouraging hatred and devaluation of people.
Yes, some of them are. Certainly when they were founded and for many years the SPLC did good work. That time has long passed. Note that many of these groups are insignificant, inactive, often non-groups at all, but as long as they are right-wing SPLC comes up with some justification to add them. They co-mingle actual "hate" groups with Christian groups and other mainstream educational organizations. They will add any non-left group to their list simply for taking a right-wing political position, while ignoring virtually any left-wing groups even with documented history of violent activity.
The Family Research Council's main reason for existing is to encourage the oppression of non-Christians and Christians that fail to adhere to their extremist values.
That's simply false. I'm no fan of the FRC, and won't defend them or their positions, many of which I disagree with. However, they are not a "KKK-like" organization. SPLC lists them as a "hate" group simply for things they SAY (none of which comes anywhere near to the standard of inciting violence). You're wrong that it's not over a policy disagreement - that's ALL it is. Same thing with Ben Carson and many of the Christian groups they target.
I am a crackpot