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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @12:36AM
You seem to be saying that those 2 are one and the same.
NOT EVEN CLOSE.
"Liberal Democracy" is a Right-Center thing. [politicalcompass.org]
Taken to its natural conclusion, it's what's gotten The Working Class into a serious bind over the last several decades. [fpif.org] (orig) [fpif.org]
It accepts the concept of employees and a separate ownership class as normal.
It accepts things like the Electoral College as "democratic".
That is NOT "Left".
An actual Leftist (an Anarchist aka "without rulers") holds that government should be as local as is possible.
An Ultra-Leftist (a Communist|Socialist|Marxist) also completely rejects the exploitive system called Capitalism.
A Leftist holds that collective ownership of the means of production is essential for a stable society. [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [dissidentvoice.org]
The Cuban gov't accepts small privately-owned companies--but doesn't allow them to become a chain-store operation...and certainly not a megacorporation.
Cuba also encourages worker-owned cooperatives.
At a national level, that's the closest any country has come to actual "Socialism".
Northern Italy and some parts of Spain have clumps of Socialism at a more regional level.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @02:25AM
what's gotten The Working Class into a serious bind over the last several decades. [googleusercontent.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday October 22 2015, @11:22AM
According to the political compass, which I've done previous to this discussion, I fall in between Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich, closer to Nader a little more libertarian.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 22 2015, @07:46PM
In that case, you have miscategorized yourself.
The winners of the recent election in Canada call themselves "liberal".
What you will see from them is continued war and continued austerity.
Those are NOT Leftist positions.
Liberals occupy the wishy-washy Center, these days mostly biased toward the Right.
If you are opposed to wealth inequality; a class of idle rich; a gov't that doesn't guarantee a proper education, universal healthcare, and a job with a living wage for every one of its people; and eroding civil liberties, you should be calling yourself a Socialist or a Marxist or a Leftist.
-- gewg_