Taxes are not being raised because voters keep on voting for people promising not to raise taxes. The constant anti-tax campaign since Reagan continues to be effective, many non-affluent people voting against their own self- interests. But resorting to fines as revenue stream in lieu of taxes on those who have something to be taxed is like sending the hunting dogs hunting, as uncovered by the Feds in Ferguson. Police work becomes more of a revenue-raising activity, like watching out for people who don't wear seatbelts, not signaling when changing lanes, making a turn signal when turning, etc. and whipping out a ticket to meet assigned quotas Now paying in blood for those who don't have the money? Remember Shylock and his pound of flesh?
11
Something just feels wrong about it. Plus the fact most of the blood was thrown away. And it seems the testing isn't 100% reliable. It would be much more beneficial in my view if the judge let people work off the fine. Picking up trash on the freeway or working at the recycling center, which I myself did to pay off a fine many moons ago. Also one of the people profiled here, Mr Green owed "thousands" for marijuana related convictions, which I'm sure many folks probably owe fines for. That is easily solved..... Legalize It. Think about all that tax money they could use for court appointed lawyers and court costs and the judges salary and health care and the police and this and that ........
5
If Alabama would raise taxes to support the court system instead of arresting it's way to fund itself. The working poor would not be paying the police state with thier blood. In my opinion things to do with police and courts these days are indicating something is terribly wrong. All these little towns are arresting their way to prosperity. It may soon become evident that Fergeson is the norm rather than the exception. This is what we'll see untill taxes meet society's needs.
8
Alabama? In PA the fines are more than doubled with various fees, taxes by another name.
4
Giving blood trumps spilling blood.
1
I cannot be sure what the motive of this judge was. There is a definate need for society to find new ways that deal with criminals, but this blood is not being put to good use.
2
Many, although certainly not all, convicted offenders have histories of substance abuse which makes them very high risk for all sorts of infectious diseases. Many of these diseases can be found through routine blood bank screening, but if the person is newly infected, it may NOT be found! In the age of HIV/AIDS and Hep C this policy is insanity.
13
Of course the judge was right to ask the citizenry to roll up their sleeves and do the right thing for the good of their fellow citizens. It's like paying taxes. No fun but someone has to do it.
1
Are you deliberately obtuse? This was extortion. Give blood or go to jail. "Captive audience" doesn't begin to describe the setting. And the final paragraph says it all; the judge's promise to credit donors with $100 of their accrued fees and fines was not kept. After threatening people and softening the threat with an "incentive," he reneged on the incentive. This is an "unjustice" system at its worst. It has to change.
9
Remember the Norwegian mass murderer? His country is paying for his college education in jail. Here in the United States, they want you to pay out of your minor offenses; if you don't have money, they would take your blood. It's like the United States is still struggling to let go of its instinctive urge to hold black people as a source of income for white people. They lost the civil war; so they would resist the old instinct; but hell would break lose before they paid for your criminal expenses as if you were a fully privileged white citizen of the great nation! And I am not saying it's only a Sothern problem only. Even Wall Street is privy to the old instinct.
8
Why do you think this is racial? This does not only happen to black people in the country. It is the way a wayward government treats its citizenry. Come to Manhattan and get your car towed. That will be an experience you won't soon forget.
3
There is a great body of work around ethical principles guiding blood donations. It would have been helpful if the reporter had brought some of that material into the discussion - the apparently off-the-cuff comment by Professor Caplan is insufficient to inform the conversation.
For example, the following links:
WHO guidelines on counseling for blood donors http://www.who.int/bloodsafety/voluntary_donation/Blooddonorcounselling.pdf
WHO guidelines on blood donor selection http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/76724/1/9789241548519_eng.pdf?ua=1
and A code of ethics for blood donation and transfusion. Amsterdam, International Society of Blood Transfusion, 2006. (http://www.isbtweb.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ ISBT_Code_of_Ethics/Code_of_ethics_new_logo_-_feb_2011.pdf accessed on 17 August 2012).
For example, the following links:
WHO guidelines on counseling for blood donors http://www.who.int/bloodsafety/voluntary_donation/Blooddonorcounselling.pdf
WHO guidelines on blood donor selection http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/76724/1/9789241548519_eng.pdf?ua=1
and A code of ethics for blood donation and transfusion. Amsterdam, International Society of Blood Transfusion, 2006. (http://www.isbtweb.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ ISBT_Code_of_Ethics/Code_of_ethics_new_logo_-_feb_2011.pdf accessed on 17 August 2012).
5
If judges can coerce the poor into selling their blood to raise revenue, what's next? Mandatory kidney-harvesting? Compulsory surrogate pregnancies with the resulting fees forfeited to the government? Our founding fathers must be rolling in their graves--assuming their remains haven't been sold off to settle past-due fees and fines.
15
If given the chance to make a hundred bucks for a pint of blood, how many of these people would willingly give it if they were to actually receive the money?
Ever tried to squeeze blood from a turnip? That may be what it's like for this judge in collecting fines and I cannot say I totally disagree with him.
Let me inform you peopIe out there what this Judge may be dealing with. I loaned $700.00 to an employee and told him it was up to him to decide how he would repay me. That was 6 months ago. I have reminded him exactly twice. He replied he thought about it every night before he went to bed. I still have not received a single cent in repayment. People who live paycheck to paycheck talk a lot about a lot of things, but there is one thing that usually is true with all of them; if you don't force them to pay you they will not. There is always a crisis or some other thing that is more important than you. And you can take that to the bank!
Ever tried to squeeze blood from a turnip? That may be what it's like for this judge in collecting fines and I cannot say I totally disagree with him.
Let me inform you peopIe out there what this Judge may be dealing with. I loaned $700.00 to an employee and told him it was up to him to decide how he would repay me. That was 6 months ago. I have reminded him exactly twice. He replied he thought about it every night before he went to bed. I still have not received a single cent in repayment. People who live paycheck to paycheck talk a lot about a lot of things, but there is one thing that usually is true with all of them; if you don't force them to pay you they will not. There is always a crisis or some other thing that is more important than you. And you can take that to the bank!
4
Every once in awhile I see a comment that I believe is worth reposting, so that later readers are likely to have the opportunity to check it out. The following is by Susanna from South Carolina, who indirectly highlights the issue of which is more effective and more ethically appropriate when, as a society, we wish to accomplish something: negative penalties or positive reinforcement?
"Why doesn't Alabama do what we do here in South Carolina - tie blood donation to college football fandom? Clemson and USC fans participate in a blood drive "contest" the week before their annual game at the end of the football season. (There's a trophy and everything; it's currently held by the Gamecocks.)
This drive, over the last 30 years or so, has resulted in the donation of over 100,000 pints of blood, which has helped to save many lives.
I imagine that such a contest between Alabama and Auburn fans could produce many pints, and save many lives, in Alabama. And all legal, too!"
"Why doesn't Alabama do what we do here in South Carolina - tie blood donation to college football fandom? Clemson and USC fans participate in a blood drive "contest" the week before their annual game at the end of the football season. (There's a trophy and everything; it's currently held by the Gamecocks.)
This drive, over the last 30 years or so, has resulted in the donation of over 100,000 pints of blood, which has helped to save many lives.
I imagine that such a contest between Alabama and Auburn fans could produce many pints, and save many lives, in Alabama. And all legal, too!"
4
Steve Fankuchen Oakland, CA: you miss the point. "Judge" Wiggins's actions are coercive: donate or do jail time, whether you are arrested for assault or midnight hunting.
There is something wrong with this that no contest can correct.
There is something wrong with this that no contest can correct.
14
Whosoever thinks that giving blood is bad is incorrect. Donating blood is good for the body, if you are in good health. It is especially good for men because they accumulate a protein Ferritin and too much of it is bad for the heart. Women do not have this issue due to their monthly biology. I am male and used to donate blood regularly but cannot anymore. I think that what the Judge was doing is a favor to the persons to donate blood and good public service for the persons who will utilize the blood, possibly all across the USA, maybe even the world.
I believe that the Honorable Judge should have given the same consideration towards fine or jail time to persons who presented themselves to donate blood but were rejected by the blood bank due to ANY reason. Also, he should have ordered the fine paid in full upon blood donation as we humans cannot make artificial blood and the $100 valuation for one unit of blood donation is not sufficient.
I believe that the Honorable Judge should have given the same consideration towards fine or jail time to persons who presented themselves to donate blood but were rejected by the blood bank due to ANY reason. Also, he should have ordered the fine paid in full upon blood donation as we humans cannot make artificial blood and the $100 valuation for one unit of blood donation is not sufficient.
1
F&M Houston: a little correction from a physician: men do not accumulate iron [measured by a ferritin determination] unless they have hemochromatosis, an inheritable genetic condition that results in excess iron accumulation with adverse deposition in various organs, and although women have less risk and slower accumulation due to their menses, they too are eventually at risk if they have the disorder, but will present at a later age.
5
The blood was thrown away by the service that collected it. Read to the end; the blood procurer (commercial, I assume) didn't want the "reputational risk" of being associated with coercion, rather than donation. It has a policy specifically against it's agents (who I assume are paid on commission for the blood they procure from "drives" setting up these kind of extortionate "injustice system" events. The fact that the judge reneged on his promise to reduce cumulative fines and fees by $100 for each "donor" confirms that this is another instance of a petty bully playing with people's lives--because he can.
2
A good way to think about Judge Wiggins is that he is a mechanic put in charge of fixing a poorly designed engine. At the end of the day, he as to follow the law on the books, however poorly written they might be. So, don't be too harsh on him. As bad as this article makes him sound, he is trying to think outside of the box. Nobody got sent to jail that day, and that is the best possible outcome for a lot of the people there. The problem isn't with the judge. It's with the Alabama's legislature.
I'd give a pint of blood a week for 5 years to wipe out my student loan debt.
6
Having worked in the blood testing industry, I can state with utter certainty that ALL blood collected in the US is tested for ALL relevant blood-borne diseases, So why do hospitals reject "paid" blood?
2
Not all blood borne diseases show up immediately when tested. The safety of the blood supply depends in part on donors answering truthfully on their exposure risks via travel, sex, accidental needle sticks, IV drug use, etc. FDA prohibits blood collectors giving donors any gift so valuable it would induce them to lie about their history.
12
I work in a hospital. Even though the blood is tested and could safely be used, the hospitals rightly reject "paid" blood because it is unethical - opening them up to both moral dilemmas and lawsuits. The medical industry is constantly worried about and analyzing every action through an ethical lens. Whole departments and highly educated ethicists must sign off on nearly every action. That is because medical professionals must be wary of the slippery slope. If they allow a less than ethical method for anything, no matter how well intentioned, where will it stop? Won't the blurring of the line allow future actions, also unethical, beginning the slide down that slope? So the point here is not whether this blood is usable or safe. The whole issue is that it was obtained unethically. It's like enjoying money from a criminal enterprise gained from a relative. You are not guilty of the criminal act, but isn't it still wrong? And doesn't your use of stolen money encourage that less than law-abiding relative of yours to continue engaging in criminal enterprise?
7
thanks to both dennis and theodore for their cogent explanations.
1
Regarding Arthur Caplan's words (professor of medical ethics):
“You’re basically sentencing someone to an invasive procedure that doesn’t benefit them and isn’t protecting the public health"
His two assertions are that it "doesn't benefit them" and "isn't protecting public health." Punishments for crimes do not typically benefit the criminal who committed the act, that's why we call them punishments. Fines certainly don't benefit the criminal, perhaps we should get rid of lawsuits? Should we burn down the jails because they don't benefit the criminals? (important prison reform discussion aside)
Donating blood doesn't benefit public health? That's news to me and every single organization that runs blood drives.
Donating blood is a good deed, similar to community service (which is also a punishment given sometimes). It is certainly more beneficial to society to have someone donate blood than throw them in jail (for minor crimes of course). If you find ordering the donation of blood to be that horrible, then that same logic must lead one to believe we shouldn't use prison, as prison is far more damaging to an individual and far less *directly* helpful to saving lives.
“You’re basically sentencing someone to an invasive procedure that doesn’t benefit them and isn’t protecting the public health"
His two assertions are that it "doesn't benefit them" and "isn't protecting public health." Punishments for crimes do not typically benefit the criminal who committed the act, that's why we call them punishments. Fines certainly don't benefit the criminal, perhaps we should get rid of lawsuits? Should we burn down the jails because they don't benefit the criminals? (important prison reform discussion aside)
Donating blood doesn't benefit public health? That's news to me and every single organization that runs blood drives.
Donating blood is a good deed, similar to community service (which is also a punishment given sometimes). It is certainly more beneficial to society to have someone donate blood than throw them in jail (for minor crimes of course). If you find ordering the donation of blood to be that horrible, then that same logic must lead one to believe we shouldn't use prison, as prison is far more damaging to an individual and far less *directly* helpful to saving lives.
No, it doesn't benefit anyone - the blood gets thrown out. The point is not what defines punishment. The judge is interested in punishment. The medical community - responsible for blood supply and the welfare of patients - is not at all interested in punishments but in obtaining clean blood ethically, transparently, and fairly. It's just like prisoners being forced to donate organs. Unethical. There are laws against this - and there should be a similar law against forced blood donations.
6
If the blood does indeed just get thrown out then I completely agree that it doesn't benefit anyone - it would be pointless. If the blood gets used, it's beneficial. The article made it sound like the judge was giving criminals a choice (see third paragraph): pay the fine, go to jail, or give blood. It does not seem unethical if it's not forced but instead a choice one can take over the owed fee or serving time.
Bub, NY, states: "Punishments for crimes do not typically benefit the criminal who committed the act, that's why we call them punishments."
Many people still believe that punishment can serve a rehabilitative function, which benefits the person being punished. Being compelled to donate blood, as medical ethic professor Arthur Caplan explains, doesn't. It isn't punitive, exactly, but is "unusual" if not "cruel."
Many people still believe that punishment can serve a rehabilitative function, which benefits the person being punished. Being compelled to donate blood, as medical ethic professor Arthur Caplan explains, doesn't. It isn't punitive, exactly, but is "unusual" if not "cruel."
1
A common belief is that corruption is a judge taking bribes. The definition exceeds this theory. Corruption describes any organized, interdependent system in which part of the system is either not performing duties it was originally intended to, or performing them in an improper way, to the detriment of the system's original purpose. In this country, corruption is so common that it is expected when ordinary businesses or citizens interact with government officials.
The end-point of political corruption is a kleptocracy, literally "rule by thieves".
The end-point of political corruption is a kleptocracy, literally "rule by thieves".
2
Are there no poorhouses, no prisons?
2
That's the next "creative" move for raising $$$.
1
What is disturbing about this is the attitude of "Judge" Wiggins: give blood and receive a credit toward your fine (which may not be so objectionable) or be certain that you will go to jail. It's the coercive nature of the statement that if you don't give blood you will go to jail, regardless of the nature of the offense - hunting after dark, drug possession and passing bad checks all of which should not automatically result in jail time, whereas if you committed assault, the one thing that is worthy of a spell in jail, you could go free.
This is not the Wisdom of Solomon - it's the Folly of Wiggins!
But then again, this is Alabama, not the brightest light in the nation and the defendants should consider themselves lucky it is not Hanging Judge Wiggins, just the bloody judge.
This is not the Wisdom of Solomon - it's the Folly of Wiggins!
But then again, this is Alabama, not the brightest light in the nation and the defendants should consider themselves lucky it is not Hanging Judge Wiggins, just the bloody judge.
4
Charles Dickens mid 1850s novel "Little Dorritt" (http://bit.ly/1RUwzJf) deals with the harsh effects of debtors' prisons in a satirical way. Here is a good summary from The Marshall Project (http://bit.ly/1DOaBUA) about debtor's prisons. Even the Romans, not known for their delicate ways, did not approve of jailing people for unpaid debts. Unfortunately jailing people because they can't pay a debt can have fatal consequences as the story of Ray Staten's 16-day jail time in Mississippi sadly shows. He died from an acute abdominal infection that was ignored by the prison staff until it was too late. Giving defendants the choice of paying, giving blood or going to jail is coercion plain and simple. And it is reminiscent of the use of debtor's prisons that America supposedly abolished long ago. As a physician I can think of bad reactions that could occur in someone who decides giving blood is better than going to jail. The whole thing is shameful and should be the final straw in Judge Wiggins career on the bench.
9
I actually agree with this judge. He pretty much pointed out that anyone who says they can't afford to pay a fine isn't trying hard enough as there's one very convenient way of doing it right across the street. To be perfectly honest, I'd rather donate blood (I know it takes like 4 hours) than to be stuck having to pay a fine I can't afford (or even worse, jail). I'd donate blood instead of paying a speeding ticket if I could, would sure help my bank account out as well as somebody else who needs the blood.
2
Four hours to donate a pint of blood? Less than an hour from walking in to walking out; about 8 minutes of needle time depending on how fast your blood flows. (402 donations at Stanford Blood Center, mostly platelets 24 times per year.)
it seems they make stuff as the go in the south.
Can't pay fines, go to jail.
No, no. Not jail. Join the military. (Great reasoning there, hey?)
Don't want to join the army? Community service? What kind? Who cares?
No, no. Not jail. Not the military. Not community service. Give blood. That's the ticket (so to speak). Blood. How much? Who cares? Just open up that vein and we'll stop when we feel like it.
Hold on. Maybe Mike Huckabee was right. Slavery. That's it. Can't pay a small fine? Become a slave.
Or, in Texas and can't pay the fine? Tough. Off to jail you go. To die in your cell.
Can't pay fines, go to jail.
No, no. Not jail. Join the military. (Great reasoning there, hey?)
Don't want to join the army? Community service? What kind? Who cares?
No, no. Not jail. Not the military. Not community service. Give blood. That's the ticket (so to speak). Blood. How much? Who cares? Just open up that vein and we'll stop when we feel like it.
Hold on. Maybe Mike Huckabee was right. Slavery. That's it. Can't pay a small fine? Become a slave.
Or, in Texas and can't pay the fine? Tough. Off to jail you go. To die in your cell.
4
I am about to finish a book entitled "The New Jim Crow", and reading even the title of this article sends disgust through my stomach. This article leaves me with the impression that the "The South is still probably the South, and that folks there are still backwards and racist including their correctional and justice systems" Didn't we read about "the pound of flesh for a debt owned" in the "Merchant of Venice". I guess the South is a crazy place to be.
4
This is unconstitutional on its face. Next.
1
Not so fast ! If the judge *ordered* the offenders to donate blood, then that would/could be unconstitutional, but a judge giving them the *option* to pay with money obtained from a blood donation is not so obviously unconstitutional.
1
The courts of this country are not an industry. Citizens cannot be jailed for being poor. Weren't these points the two central holdings in the Citizens United case?
1
What a great way to collect a person's DNA for the criminal databases than have that person give blood that can be easily traced back to the offender through an identity labeled sample with receipt duplicate attached to prove the connection between that blood and the offender.
3
This could be a Saturday Night Live Skit.
But it isnt funny that the "poor states" think this kind of ethical topsy-turvy by a judge is A-OK.
3
The poor states that don't tax those who can pay.
Really want to punish them? Have them do some real actual wor-wor- wor -- (choke gasp) -- WORK. Such as cleaning out animal cages at an animal shelter.
Coming from someone who volunteers at an animal shelter, we don't want criminals around the animals. When people call about court ordered community service we deny them.
1
first: why don't you want criminals around animals ?
second: not all people who do community service are criminals.
second: not all people who do community service are criminals.
1
Agreed, I've worked with one CS volunteer, he'd copped his sentence on account of beating up the abusive father of his stepdaughter. A lot of them are copping CS requirements for far less injurious reasons.
Why doesn't Alabama do what we do here in South Carolina - tie blood donation to college football fandom? Clemson and USC fans participate in a blood drive "contest" the week before their annual game at the end of the football season. (There's a trophy and everything; it's currently held by the Gamecocks.)
This drive, over the last 30 years or so, has resulted in the donation of over 100,000 pints of blood, which has helped to save many lives.
I imagine that such a contest between Alabama and Auburn fans could produce many pints, and save many lives, in Alabama. And all legal, too!
This drive, over the last 30 years or so, has resulted in the donation of over 100,000 pints of blood, which has helped to save many lives.
I imagine that such a contest between Alabama and Auburn fans could produce many pints, and save many lives, in Alabama. And all legal, too!
3
I think it's a great way to clear out jails for petty offenses, and it may give these people a better sense of personal responsibility. For a healthy person to give blood is no big deal,but blood banks are in constant need of blood.
This is a win-win for the state and the convicted offender.
This is a win-win for the state and the convicted offender.
Why stop at blood? Why not take their kidneys, or some bone marrow, or some hair plugs or something?
16
Because your blood is replaced easily, but your body doesn't grow a set of kidneys. Be reasonable. Donating long hair sounds like a good one too, actually!
1
Wow, I was exposed to AIDS 20 years ago and so never give blood. What if I was given that choice, would I be responsible? Do they test to make sure the donations are safe?
6
Of course they do!!!
they would not take your blood silly
Given they had Hepatitis tainted blood in the past 20 years... you really want to bet on that? Doesn't sound like they're doing the prescreening test even ie "have you ever injected drugs?".
What's more fascinating isn't so much the jail or blood punishment, but the fact that Alabama's Judicial system is so corrupt that even though the Governor of the State and the Judicial review board has publicly reprimanded Judge Marvin Wiggins for ethic violations and corruption in the past, he is still a sitting Judge. Goes to show you can still buy Judges in this country.
9
Funny to watch progressives work themselves up into a social justice frenzy over this, then turn around and defend planned parenthood harvesting organs from unborn children for profit.
1
Nobody needs to defend nor is defending what you say, because it didn't happen.
12
Of course it did, GR.
TPierre Changstien bk,nyc: apparently you don't read the news, TPierre, or you'd know there is no substance to your remark, except for your bias against so called "progressives". I guess that makes you a "regressive". Huh?
3
The US practiced forced sterilization as part of a government mandated eugenics program up till as recently as the 70s in some states. so this practice has roots in even more chilling precedents than mere blood letting.
5
Many commenters have explained why it is unconstitutional to require the indigent to give blood or face jail. However, jailing the indigent because they can't afford to pay a fine is also unconstitutional.
At least three Supreme Court cases have held that it is unconstitutional to incarcerate indigents who cannot pay a debt. In Williams v. Illinois (1970), the Court ruled that a maximum prison term could not be expended because the defendant was unable to pay court costs or fines. Tate v. Short (1971) held that it was unconstitutional to jail a defendant because he was too poor to pay a fine. Finally, the Court in Bearden v Georgia (1983) ruled that judges were compelled to distinguish between debtors too poor to pay versus those simply unwilling to do so.
Why with all this Supreme Court precedent are judges still incarcerating ANYONE too poor to pay a fine? Are the local judges not bothering to follow Bearden v. Georgia, to determine what defendants are actually indigent? If not, why not?
At least three Supreme Court cases have held that it is unconstitutional to incarcerate indigents who cannot pay a debt. In Williams v. Illinois (1970), the Court ruled that a maximum prison term could not be expended because the defendant was unable to pay court costs or fines. Tate v. Short (1971) held that it was unconstitutional to jail a defendant because he was too poor to pay a fine. Finally, the Court in Bearden v Georgia (1983) ruled that judges were compelled to distinguish between debtors too poor to pay versus those simply unwilling to do so.
Why with all this Supreme Court precedent are judges still incarcerating ANYONE too poor to pay a fine? Are the local judges not bothering to follow Bearden v. Georgia, to determine what defendants are actually indigent? If not, why not?
10
You expose the horrifying underbelly of the judiciary. I want to know how any judge is ALLOWED to incarcerate someone too poor to pay a fine. As far as I'm concerned, when judges break the law by not enforcing the laws we already have, they shouldn't get to be judges anymore and should, in fact, be prosecuted for breaking the law and especially for refusing to uphold the law as standard bearers of our Constitution and the laws governing our country - federal, state and municipal.
6
I menat to say the "Court ruled that a maximum prison term could not be extended"... (not expended)
All well and good with your argument but there's a difference between private debt and public debt.
Note to Judge Wiggins: Please consider a fourth alternative for penalties imposed on indigent defendants. In addition to payment, jail, or donating blood, presenting a pound of flesh to the court would be an an alternative fully consistent with the approach of the Alabama judicial system.
4
Jailing a indigent who can't afford to pay a fine violate the 14th Amendment equal protection clause.
4
Sure, why not colonize our own citizens and treat them like resources to be exploited? If this egregious idea is permitted then how soon will similar retrograde judges be demanding a kidney or some other organs as appropriate?
7
There is so much blood that is unacceptable and to make people bring a receipt to prove they gave blood or go to jail is unacceptable. If you are ill or on many medications the Red Cross will not take your blood. If you've paid for sex (yes, they ask you) they will not take your blood. A friend of mine tried to give blood but because she had cancer in the past they wouldn't take her blood. Would Judge Wiggins send an ill person to jail because his or her blood was rejected?
6
If it takes is blood to satisfy a traffic ticket, will a kidney cover a drug arrest or a liver for a DWI?
Maybe an eye donation will be deemed sufficient for a bodily injury charge?
Alabama should consider whether 16 years on the bench has been too much for Judge Wiggins.
Maybe an eye donation will be deemed sufficient for a bodily injury charge?
Alabama should consider whether 16 years on the bench has been too much for Judge Wiggins.
13
The judges ruling to either give blood or face jail is unconstitutional. Jailing indigents who cannot pay a fine is also unconstitutional. That these barbaric penalties continue is a travesty. Surely creative minds can come up with something that is reasonable and constitutional.
6
Sad that all the creativity towards poor people does not start at birth by building strong communities - we have failed trillion dollar wars and conflicts to maintain.
10
Coersion is not how to serve justice. If this is an example of Justice in Alabama, I'll just avoid the state.
3
This sure gives a chilling new meaning to the term "blood money". First the banks, then the merchants, now our very own judiciary, all literary squeezing every possible drop of blood out of us that they can. Death at the end looks better every day, assuming all the vampires don't drain me and finish me off first.
7
I have read a lot of these comments. This story is NOT about giving people choice.
This is someone's dumb dumb dumb idea that police departments and your town's judiciary should now used to RAISE $$$$ off the population they police and judge. That is a problem. The fact that a ready pool of poor people are soaked for bogus stuff along with actual criminals is not the way to balance our budgets.
We have a ridiculous political class telling people that everything from war to potholes costs NOTHING and promise that you don't have to pay for anything. Taking money and blood from indigents won't solve the problem. Not even in Alabama.
This is someone's dumb dumb dumb idea that police departments and your town's judiciary should now used to RAISE $$$$ off the population they police and judge. That is a problem. The fact that a ready pool of poor people are soaked for bogus stuff along with actual criminals is not the way to balance our budgets.
We have a ridiculous political class telling people that everything from war to potholes costs NOTHING and promise that you don't have to pay for anything. Taking money and blood from indigents won't solve the problem. Not even in Alabama.
11
So I see that the State of Alabama's heartless and unjust power structure now includes blacks.
Alabama - where even progress is awful
Alabama - where even progress is awful
8
Unfortunately some people are either too poor or too ignorant than to know better than to live in a state like Alabama. The Governor (the white guy in the photo) who closes 80% of the DMV's (a driver's license being the most common form of id for voting in the state) in the counties that are 75% black populated and now the nutty judge who offers blood donation or jail as the alternative. No doubt, other examples abound of their backwoods way of life.
8
How much longer till one or more southern states attempts to bring back debtors' prisons?
9
From NPR:
In 2013, the municipal court in Ferguson — a city of 21,135 people — issued 32,975 arrest warrants for nonviolent offenses, mostly driving violations. As I understand it, a large part of police and judicial malfeasance in Ferguson consisted of fines arbitrarily imposed traffic and other fines, which generated a steady source of revenue for the town. Jail terms for deadbeat dads and those (largely black) citizens who couldn't pay traffic tickets also led to the civil suit where Ferguson was sued over operating an alleged modern-day debtors’ prison.
http://www.npr.org/2014/08/25/343143937/in-ferguson-court-fines-and-fees...
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/Ferguson-sued-modern-day-debtors-prison
In 2013, the municipal court in Ferguson — a city of 21,135 people — issued 32,975 arrest warrants for nonviolent offenses, mostly driving violations. As I understand it, a large part of police and judicial malfeasance in Ferguson consisted of fines arbitrarily imposed traffic and other fines, which generated a steady source of revenue for the town. Jail terms for deadbeat dads and those (largely black) citizens who couldn't pay traffic tickets also led to the civil suit where Ferguson was sued over operating an alleged modern-day debtors’ prison.
http://www.npr.org/2014/08/25/343143937/in-ferguson-court-fines-and-fees...
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/Ferguson-sued-modern-day-debtors-prison
3
Today, every state has debtor prisons.....despite their abolishment in 1833. Don't pay a fine and see what happens.
4
How about keeping this in perspective. Sure, in principle it was wrong. But the penultimate paragraph says everyone there was released. Donating blood is not donating an organ. This initiative was well-intended though wrongful and it appears to have been harmless. The other day the Editorial Board praised a judge who issued an expungement even though he didn't have the power to. Sometimes justice isn't neat. But rough justice is still justice.
2
Terrible. But the cavalier disregard for health and rights reminds me a little of stories I've heard about medical treatment for drug withdrawal being withheld from newly arrested inmates if they won't inform against others. Do we really want health issues mixed up with law enforcement? Both scenarios would seem to me to violate ethics, and there also seems to me to be in both an element of sadism.
1
Donating blood seems more reasonable than going to jail when you cannot pay a fine. It's another choice. Pay fine, or donate blood or go to jail...well, community service would also be a good choice too..
4
Using that logic a judge could coerce a poor person into doing almost anything to avoid a fine or jail; would that be okay with you? Because let's be honest--nobody with a healthy bank account will ever have to make those trade-offs. It's not a choice if the alternatives are to give blood or lose your job, your kids or your home.
3
how about not forcing the indigent to pay fines they cant afford in the first place?
1
Well, some choices might seem a little unsavory.
For instance a mugger could say to his victim, "Would you rather be beaten up or would you rather have sex with me?"
Isn't the victim better off than having no choice? :)
I mean your logic seems attractive but it has some flaws.
For instance a mugger could say to his victim, "Would you rather be beaten up or would you rather have sex with me?"
Isn't the victim better off than having no choice? :)
I mean your logic seems attractive but it has some flaws.
3
Is it any wonder why they are suppressing voter registration.
8
Bad idea. Involuntary donations increase the risk of transmitting disease. Tests are not 100% reliable, and some early infections do not show up on assays.
6
This was ridiculous. The blood was almost all rejected and never used. What purpose did this serve? The materials used to take the donations just to throw them away? Future Judges should learn from this event. I really do think Judges go too far. What were they thinking? They cant get money from these people so lets take their blood? Who is looking out for us? Where does this end? Concentration camps? Martial law? Are we far away from that now?
7
This is more typical in America than people are aware of. How long did the recently revealed Chicago affair go on before it hit the front pages. There is no way the federal government is about to reform the power of the state. It makes for nice theater but lawyers like Hillary to reform the mess in the criminal justice system? Keep dreaming and watching TV cop shows.
2
How can someone with no sense of irony, of shame, of decency, become a judge? Sure it's Alabama but even so. It's a metaphor for the legal system and for our social and economic structure.
It must be the popularity of vampires in movies and books. I can hardly wait for zombies to be integrated into our justice system.
It must be the popularity of vampires in movies and books. I can hardly wait for zombies to be integrated into our justice system.
5
When I lived in Houston, it literally did not matter if a candidate for judge was someone with criminal or ethical charges hanging over them or if they had no judicial experience or qualifications - all they had to do was run on the GOP ticket and they'd win election thanks to straight-ticket voters.
8
Well since they start out as lawyers, I would say that no sense of irony, shame or decency goes with the job.
1
Well, Mr. Magoo here in NY they don't even bother with that. The Democratic primary is the election. Kind of what the used to do in the Soviet Union. And about as damaging to good governance as that was.
I'm not sure why people are so scandalized. Alabama was the last state to outlaw convict leasing by which convicts were leased to private employers, particularly in the mining and steel and turpentine industries. And when there weren't enough convicts, law enforcement went out and picked up folks, mostly African American men, for vagrancy and other trumped up charges.
10
Between the blood=money judge and the buy-a-convict employment plan, it sounds like the kind of place where you have to bribe a border guard to get out.
1
As a long time blood donor, I doubt if many of these individuals qualify to give blood, or if they can even answer the dozens of questions asked about health history every single time one gives. There are matters about tattoos, Hep C, homosexual lovers, medications, specific medical diagnosis, just to name a few that I can recall. I'm presuming that most of the people in court don't travel, and there are a lot of questions about that.
6
Obviously, any reasonable person should find this horrifying. Among other things, some people might have health problems that make donating blood a bad idea for themselves, not to mention for potential recipients. We are going to keep reading about these things until we come to accept an essential truth: Imprisonment should be abolished, eliminated, not an option for any infraction that does not carry imprisonment as a penalty in and of itself. The punishment for a parking ticket is a fine. That punishment should never be permitted to be transformed into imprisonment just because you can't or even won't pay it. There may be other things -- loss of driver's license, or loss of residential parking permits that could be used to incentivize payment but jail as a solution to any criminal justice problem should be reserved to crimes or arrests for crimes that carry imprisonment as a penalty for the crime itself. I don't care if it makes the administration of so-called justice more difficult. Take the money you save from not having people in prison to adopt a different process. Prison is NOT a solution. What made locking up people into such an appealing prospect for local governments? It's obscene.
8
Reason number 345 why the Alabama judicial system is a disgrace to the Constitution and the very notion of the rule of law.
8
An unwilling donor is the last source I would choose for any kind of tissue transplant. It's not practical to test for every possible infectious agent.
3
America, one of only three slave societies to ever to exist and the one with the most virulent racism. Now we are true plutocracy as well. Too bad we've run out of places to ship the poor, reviled and debt ridden souls. Instead let's take their blood or better yet - kidneys!
6
Why isn't this assault?
10
The real offense is the level of fines in the first place.
We desperately need to find a path to prevent local and state Governments (mostly "Republican" controlled) from relying on extractive criminal fines and court fees as a revenue source.
For a local example here in Arkansas, the Pulaski County Sheriff's Department (Little Rock) is concerned that it will be unable to replace patrol vehicles without the (current) 88% mark up on inmate phone calls in the county jail.
We desperately need to find a path to prevent local and state Governments (mostly "Republican" controlled) from relying on extractive criminal fines and court fees as a revenue source.
For a local example here in Arkansas, the Pulaski County Sheriff's Department (Little Rock) is concerned that it will be unable to replace patrol vehicles without the (current) 88% mark up on inmate phone calls in the county jail.
17
What do they get if they donate a kidney? What about a lung?
3
I'm sorry, but I just can't seem to muster much righteous indignation about this. Walking into the courthouse, these people had two options: pay their fines or go to jail. After the judge spoke, they then had three options: pay their fines, go to jail, or give blood. In my view, all he did was add an extra option. Nobody was compelled to give blood - they could have simply paid their fine instead.
Now as it turns out, most of the blood was discarded, so I suppose it was kind of a fruitless venture, but I don't think adding options to the table is some sort of terrible move.
Now as it turns out, most of the blood was discarded, so I suppose it was kind of a fruitless venture, but I don't think adding options to the table is some sort of terrible move.
2
Why should someone go to jail because they lack the means to pay a fine? Do people go to jail for refusing to pay off credit card debts? Jail should not be an option. That's the true unfairness in this story, and we need to start asserting it for what it is, a new kind of debtor's prison.
3
Really?? "Nobody was compelled to give blood" Obviously written by someone who has never had to live on minimum wages or less. "The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." -- Anatole France
2
I'm all for inventive sentencing, but this sounds for all the world like a judge facing a jammed calendar who stumbled onto a potential fix and allowed it to drift out of his mouth.
1
How about organ donations for convicted felons. If blood donation is such a great idea for misdemeanors, surely organ donation to avoid a multi-year sentence is a great idea too. Let's get all we can from the wretches.
12
I wouldn't be too quick to call them wretches if I were you.
1
Thomas Moore said we first create thieves then punish them. Income inequality has grown the poor in this country and if the State wants blood or money, they are going to get it one way or another. Conservatives fear the big bad federal government when they really should fear their state and local municipalities.
12
Organize the prisoners to choose jail, breaking the system.
3
Many county jails are "Broken", there just are not enough ALU lawyers to file the lawsuits.
Most people with sickle cell trait can donate blood without problems; however, a few become symptomatic and under certain conditions (even without the prerequisite of donating blood) can experience sickling.
As an African-American physician and avid jogger who has sickle-cell trait, I experience month-long fatigue and inability to jog following blood donations.
Moreover, to increase the safety of blood for patients, some donation centers run blood through a filter to remove the white cells. Sometimes blood donated by people with sickle cell trait does not filter properly – if this happens, the donation cannot be used for patients.
The judge should remove himself from decisions requiring knowledge which he has not bothered to avail himself of.
As an African-American physician and avid jogger who has sickle-cell trait, I experience month-long fatigue and inability to jog following blood donations.
Moreover, to increase the safety of blood for patients, some donation centers run blood through a filter to remove the white cells. Sometimes blood donated by people with sickle cell trait does not filter properly – if this happens, the donation cannot be used for patients.
The judge should remove himself from decisions requiring knowledge which he has not bothered to avail himself of.
6
Uh what happened to working it of? In Georgia, if you cannot pay, you do community service. Like picking up trash or whatever to help make the cities and counties clean. And for prisoners, instead of a chain gang, one can either sit in the jail or volunteer to go out and work cleaning the roads. Community service for fines, and voluntary work for those sentenced to jail. Best way to deal with things and keep trash off the city streets and rural roads.
6
Forcing people to give blood is just wrong. However, the issue goes deeper than that. In many localities across the country fines are being levied, regardless of guilt, in order to generate money. It isn't about the rule of law. It isn't about public safety. It's all about money.
17
Great. If this gets picked up by the wire services, some bozo in the Arizona Legislature will see it in The AZ Republic and propose this.
4
Great move judge! I am a prosecutor who spent 7 years helping struggling, working poor, custodial parents. I put hundreds of Crininals in prison for non- support, and tried many alternative programs to jail, a counter- productive step.
None worked. Even getting the criminals a job was fruitless, few reported to work, none lasted a week.
These men and women inflicted pain, homelessness, even exposure of the children to physical and sexual abuse as desparate parents without family support where used by predators. The crime is as heinous as many other person offenses, and alternaIves to jail, even blood will not work, but I like the try.
None worked. Even getting the criminals a job was fruitless, few reported to work, none lasted a week.
These men and women inflicted pain, homelessness, even exposure of the children to physical and sexual abuse as desparate parents without family support where used by predators. The crime is as heinous as many other person offenses, and alternaIves to jail, even blood will not work, but I like the try.
4
sure this is gory and "unusual" but why not, everyone aside from the donor is making a profit from the donation of blood. You did a crime and now you have to pay whether its with dollars, or time; but if you thin about your dollar is your time converted in a salary or wage, so why not your blood?
Its about time a blood donor got some return on his blood.
(Blood Donation Business Model-http://www.radiolab.org/story/308780-blood-banks/)
Its about time a blood donor got some return on his blood.
(Blood Donation Business Model-http://www.radiolab.org/story/308780-blood-banks/)
Treating the poor with no respect, why is that? Is this what this country has come to?
For shame on all of us...
For shame on all of us...
8
Next they'll be asking them for a liver or other bodily organ to pay off their "debt to society." Grotesque.
8
At least it wasn't a pound of flesh.
2
A pound of flesh is reserved for something serious, tax evasion.
1
Was this an attempt to capture DNA from the populance? How could this be determined? Was the blood tested for drugs/aids/alcohol before it entered the blood supply? We've had rulings like the Schmerber case that ruled against blood test use (without warrants) for prosecutions, although a bit different, this is blood test use after prosecution. If the person walked by the blood center trailer and did not choose to donate, the judge was not in the position to force or coerce them to. Obviously the judge felt the fines were not fair, but this is not the remedy.
Dracula... or Shylock's pound of flesh?
2
The most alarming aspect is that a fundamental part of the plan to eliminate taxes for the rich man involves finding alternate ways to fund the government, including new user-fees, service taxes, and increased revenues from fines and financial penalties.
What's next? Hock your gold teeth?
What's next? Hock your gold teeth?
8
Nope but Jefferson said good government should ne wise and frugal. We can start there OK?
Good to see the possibility of contaminated blood going into the system. Perhaps a pound of flesh would be better.
2
I'm not allowed to donate blood. According to the Red Cross, anyone who traveled in Europe during the eighties and nineties is ineligible to donate. I served with the army for two years in Nuremberg, GE in the eighties. So, if I didn't have any money, I'd go to jail because I served my country overseas.
4
This is actually a great thing. The judge is not forcing anyone to give blood, but giving them an option other than jail time to repay their debt to society. Pay, give blood, or go to jail is better than pay, or go to jail. It actually does something beneficent, rather than imprisonment that is a negative for the person, and costly for the taxpayer.
Shame on all of you for being reactionary, and shame on the Times for couching this program in such a negative light.
I fully support it.
Shame on all of you for being reactionary, and shame on the Times for couching this program in such a negative light.
I fully support it.
Again, many of us object for scientific/public health reasons. Donors are screened with a series of questions designed to determine their risk of transmitting a virus. The questions are written with purely altruistic donors in mind who presumably would have no incentive to lie.
When people are coerced, obviously they are much more likely to lie, especially when it seems they actually have to donate. The types of behaviors that are checked for are likely more common in this population.
So it's a public safety issue. People are already freaked out about getting blood enough without knowing it may come from criminals who were forced to donate.
I'd be more comfortable if the judge would give them credit for being screened rather than actually having to donate.
When people are coerced, obviously they are much more likely to lie, especially when it seems they actually have to donate. The types of behaviors that are checked for are likely more common in this population.
So it's a public safety issue. People are already freaked out about getting blood enough without knowing it may come from criminals who were forced to donate.
I'd be more comfortable if the judge would give them credit for being screened rather than actually having to donate.
It didn't benefit the public because, according to the story, all the blood was thrown away because of the source of the blood. Blood can't be used from a large number of the population.
Giving people the choice of give blood or go to jail is exactly what coercion is. What if I came to your house and instructed you to either give me your blood or go to jail, and then said, "but I'm giving you a CHOICE!"
For anyone who knows the story of Asterix and Obelix (if not, they are very funny, even for adults), all I can say is "these people are crazy".
1
What a lousy idea. As a volunteer blood donor, we donate for altruistic reasons and do not donate if we answer "Yes" to any of a large number of questions on the donor questionnaire. Now you are telling people who may otherwise not be suitable to donate that they will go to jail if they do not donate. What do you think the odds are that people with various illnesses or medications in their blood that would otherwise disqualify them will donate? Granted the blood is tested but those tests are not 100% reliable and the system relies upon honesty in its donors as the first line defense.
3
OK, stop your whining, people owed money to the court for their offense. Pay or get locked away - what"s simpler than that? Donate blood and go free. So there was a choice given, it has precedent, stop whining.....
1
The easy way to avoid this problem is to avoid committing crimes, large or small.
It used to be common practice in this country for juvenile court judges to offer young men convicted of some offense a choice between serving time and joining the military. It's my impression
that a great many of them joined the service and likely benefitted from it.
that a great many of them joined the service and likely benefitted from it.
1
The whole point of the Shakespearean "pound of flesh" episode was to demonstrate how futile and useless it is to be out for blood--pushed to its logical conclusion, you wind up with a pound of flesh that is of no use to you, and deadly to the donor. The fact that most of the blood was discarded (for good reason, since the conditions under which it was collected were coercive and thus dangerous to public health) is what completes the Shakespearean resonance. Punishment for the sake of punishment, no greater objective, meaningless pounds of flesh.
4
While prancing and posturing and pretending to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, America is in reality the white supremacist bigoted land of mass incarceration of primarily poor non-violent minor crimes against property along with black and brown illegal drug users and those in possession of illegal drugs. With 5% of the planets people, America has 25% of the Earth's prisoners. And 40% of them are black and brown in a nation that 13.2 % black and brown.
4
The big problem is that this policy incentivises people to lie about their medical history and could lead to tainted blood. Presumably if they fail screening they would have to go to jail, so when they are asked about risk factors I'd imagine they would be less than honest.
I hope I never need blood in Alabama. On so many levels.
I hope I never need blood in Alabama. On so many levels.
7
Phil
Best to do as I do; don't travel to Alabama. Never have and never will!
Best to do as I do; don't travel to Alabama. Never have and never will!
Most here are pretty upset with this judge. So, what is your solution? You don't want them in jail, you don't think it's right to have them donate blood, you don't like it that too many that cannot pay are minorities. So? Just let them all go with no fine or penalty 'cause they are poor or minorities or both?!
The issue is bigger than that. Many of these people were arrested solely because the State or locality wants to raise $. And as minorities, they're arrested for "crimes" that middle-class people are not arrested for.
Want to see crime reduced? Get these people jobs that enable them to have a decent life. Not an extravagant life, but a decent life.
In Ohio, people who didn't mow their lawns or who had a car in their driveway without proper registration were getting fined and when they couldn't pay the fines, they were getting arrested and being sent to jail. How does this make any sense?
Most people who commit crimes are poor. That's why they commit the crimes in the first place. So of course these people can't pay their fines. Even if they're working, how does someone who earns minimum wage pay fines when the minimum wage won't even cover rent, food and clothing? So then they're sent to jail and when they come out, they're in worse shape than before because almost no one will hire a convict. So how do they survive? They commit another crime. And so we have this endless cycle.
I got a traffic ticket that I didn't deserve in upstate NY. They let me plead it down (which is another scam that lets the local town keep the revenue instead of having to turn it over to the State), but the fine was still substantial. If I was poor, I could have wound up in jail.
Want to see crime reduced? Get these people jobs that enable them to have a decent life. Not an extravagant life, but a decent life.
In Ohio, people who didn't mow their lawns or who had a car in their driveway without proper registration were getting fined and when they couldn't pay the fines, they were getting arrested and being sent to jail. How does this make any sense?
Most people who commit crimes are poor. That's why they commit the crimes in the first place. So of course these people can't pay their fines. Even if they're working, how does someone who earns minimum wage pay fines when the minimum wage won't even cover rent, food and clothing? So then they're sent to jail and when they come out, they're in worse shape than before because almost no one will hire a convict. So how do they survive? They commit another crime. And so we have this endless cycle.
I got a traffic ticket that I didn't deserve in upstate NY. They let me plead it down (which is another scam that lets the local town keep the revenue instead of having to turn it over to the State), but the fine was still substantial. If I was poor, I could have wound up in jail.
Isn't this merely a form of community service, so what's wrong with that? No one is being forced to give blood and it is the responsibility of the blood donation facility to accept blood only from those qualified to give it. Why is this considered a bad while ordering a miscreant to sweep streets or collect garbage is considered a good? I don't get it.
Why wait for a crime to occur? We should just chain the poor to transfusion machines, 24-7. Think of the costs we'd save in incarceration and entitlements!
5
The horrors of donating blood instead of paying a fine. What has our society degraded into?
To think stupid me since I donated blood for NO COMPENSATION just last month(well actually they did give me a bottle water and a cookie).
To think stupid me since I donated blood for NO COMPENSATION just last month(well actually they did give me a bottle water and a cookie).
The judge represents the state. The state has been interfering in the doctor/patient relationships of pregnant women for some time now. How is this any different?
11
Not only does this sound illegal, the people who did it didn't even get their $100 credit????
DIS-gusting.
DIS-gusting.
5
Medieval justice....the judge should be reprimanded.
9
It's a CHOICE. No one was forced to donate.
The "judge" should be removed from the bench.
1
"Mr. Green, 43, who owes thousands of dollars in connection with two marijuana-related convictions — one from 1998 — said he had offered to pay as much as he could but had been led to believe that he had to give blood anyway."
So Mr. Green offers to pay but is still strongly "encouraged" to donate blood or go to jail. Exactly where is this CHOICE you speak of?
So Mr. Green offers to pay but is still strongly "encouraged" to donate blood or go to jail. Exactly where is this CHOICE you speak of?
Sounds like a great idea to me. I know, I know the terrible injustice offends many of your plebian sensibilities, but we're trying to have a society here. People need to pay the court.
5
So you'd be ok getting blood from someone who may lie about risk factors for viruses so they can donate and avoid jail?
really? Is this the kind of society we have now? I'm sure you wouldn't have to worry about this yourself, but how about a little empathy? Also, would you want to get this blood as a recipient that was taken under coercion?
2
Dave, Most of what the defendants have to pay are operating expenses, not fines. Over the last 30 years or so, the legislatures, primarily the conservative ones have shifted the cost of out criminal justice system from the general budget support by taxes to the shoulders of the poor. A $100 "fine" actually costs about $500 when the addons to run the court system are added in. They whey the minimum wage earning defendant cant pay the fine, the additional costs for collection and interest rise astronomically. he, because the poor sap can't pay the fine because he has to eat, he goes to jail. He loses his job and the fine keeps getting bigger and bigger. It is really a debtors prison system, not a criminal system.
2
I see. The latter-day equivalent of Shylock, sans the saving Portia in disguise, having to sacrifice his "pound of flesh."
6
It seems we soon will be back in the "eye for an eye" punishment.
3
It's not noted in the story, but this evidently isn't the first time Judge Wiggins has engaged in ethically questionable behavior. He has been disciplined for failure to recuse himself in a voter fraud case in which he had an obvious conflict of interest, as summarized here: http://media.al.com/news_montgomery_impact/other/public%20reprimand%20wi...
9
Will serious crimes require a kidney?
19
If this is not coercion, why not employ it in more affluent areas? Individuals who can afford the fine should also be offered the option of donating blood for a reduction in fine/fees. We all know that would never happen because this is exactly what it reads as. And what a complete waste all around. As the article stated, most hospitals will not accept blood donations stamped, "paid", citizens did not receive their $100 deduction, and the "bleed or pay" program is discriminatory and predatory.
10
I mean,,,we could take this all the way and donate a kidney.
Only in America.
1
It's not America. It's Alabama. (And this guy is too corrupt for even the Governor to tolerate:
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/gov_bentley_removes_alabama_st....
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/gov_bentley_removes_alabama_st....
1
Sadly not true. And shouldn't our goal for reprehensible practices like this be "NEVER in America?"
This gives new meaning to the term "blood, sweat, and tears". Shame on the judge and his administration for allowing this.
6
There is not equal access to this "alternative" consequence. Pregnant women, many women of childbearing age (menstruation/anemia) cannot and should not be donating blood. There are other restrictions (Hep B, HIV pos.) but the two that stare out at me involve reproduction. Womenhaverights.
1
If the idea is to give blood to escape having to remain in jail for non-payment of a fine, and the chit showing one gave blood gives $100 credit, I would imagine most will take the route of giving blood even if they object to it. I know that I would.
However, having a family member who contacted Hep C through a blood transfusion before more stringent methods began with donated blood, I am very leery of blood drives of this sort.
Almost all cities use fines and such to add to their coffers and to pretend this is a one-off is wrong. However, I don't see how even the government can get blood out of a stone and to jail people for non-payment of fines creates more costs than very likely the fine will manage to cover. There has to be a better way --- it takes a willingness to find it.
However, having a family member who contacted Hep C through a blood transfusion before more stringent methods began with donated blood, I am very leery of blood drives of this sort.
Almost all cities use fines and such to add to their coffers and to pretend this is a one-off is wrong. However, I don't see how even the government can get blood out of a stone and to jail people for non-payment of fines creates more costs than very likely the fine will manage to cover. There has to be a better way --- it takes a willingness to find it.
3
Wait, so jailing someone is humane, but having them perform a community service like give blood is an offense to humanity?
Unless we want to simply excuse poor people from culpability for committing crimes, we have to come up with some form of punishment. It seems to me that giving blood is a winning idea, compared to jailing someone or confiscating what little funds they have. It's certainly less likely to screw up the rest of their lives than virtually any other punishment might.
Maybe there are preferable community service options, but I can't imagine that there aren't plenty of people who would prefer an hour donating blood to 8 hours picking up trash by the interstate.
I've given blood dozens of times, with no reward whatsoever. It's not that huge an inconvenience.
Unless we want to simply excuse poor people from culpability for committing crimes, we have to come up with some form of punishment. It seems to me that giving blood is a winning idea, compared to jailing someone or confiscating what little funds they have. It's certainly less likely to screw up the rest of their lives than virtually any other punishment might.
Maybe there are preferable community service options, but I can't imagine that there aren't plenty of people who would prefer an hour donating blood to 8 hours picking up trash by the interstate.
I've given blood dozens of times, with no reward whatsoever. It's not that huge an inconvenience.
6
Geez, maybe we could harvest sperm, too.
2
When you freely opt to give blood, then its not an intrusion. However, if you are threatened that either you find the money to pay your traffic ticket, give blood or go to jail, then the blood donation is not freely given. Since a needle must be put in your body and your blood drawn out, the process is a physically invasive one. Being forced to give blood under these circumstances means that you don't have unfettered decision-making power over what happens to your own body and that is offensive. The process that allows this coercion is predatory and disgusting.
3
Like every right winger, you believe YOUR experience is THE experience.
You may not be aware of this, but going to prison is the punishment. After that, nothing else should be done.
You may not be aware of this, but going to prison is the punishment. After that, nothing else should be done.
1
Marvin Wiggins needs impeaching. Immediately.
11
Debtors' prison is back from the past !
5
how could something like this happen when the all the oath taking judges and all the oath taking lawyers control the justice system. if this example does not confirm that the judges/lawyers have hijacked "your" system - for their complete and utter benefit - then nothing will. its the lawyers/judges - the only beneficiaries of your justice system.
3
Your comment is misguided. First of all, if the defendants in question HAD lawyers they would have been able to defend themselves. An argument for no lawyers is really a call for no laws, no matter how you slice it. Why do you think China spends so much time locking up lawyers (calling them "political agitators")? Do you think they believe that a lack of lawyers will usher in an age of equality and justice? If (heaven forbid) you ever find yourself in legal trouble, you will quickly learn the true meaning of the phrase: "Knowledge is power." Many, many people believe they are knowledgeable enough to defend themselves, but our bloated prison system conclusively establishes that they do not. This is not to say non-lawyers are less intelligent. It is to point out that despite your clichéd sneering at the legal profession, many of the people in this article and occupying prison cells today could have greatly benefited from some sound legal advice. That's why you have a RIGHT to a lawyer when you're arrested. As to hijacking the system "for their COMPLETE AND UTTER BENEFIT," you must be mad. Go talk to the public defenders who are barely keeping their heads above water. Talk to the armies of aspiring assistant district attorneys working for a fraction of what the private sector offers (while managing an ocean of debt). Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Clinton, Obama... all part of the legal profession (yes, so was Nixon, but I'm on a roll here, c'mon).
If anyone doubts that Alabama remains in the 19th century, this set of facts should set them straight.
What is next, the dystopia of Never Let Me Go, by Kazuo Ishiguro, where children are raised specifically to be organ donors until the surgeons go an organ too far?
What is next, the dystopia of Never Let Me Go, by Kazuo Ishiguro, where children are raised specifically to be organ donors until the surgeons go an organ too far?
5
one word: unconstitutional.
4
Perhaps the sentencing guidelines could be reformed to include body part discounts.
9
Strange. Some people should NEVER become blood donors.
3
So they finally figured out how to get blood from a turnip? Sounds like government to me.
6
The people who are defending the judge's actions may not have read the punch line to this article. The blood donors didn't get the promised $100 discount. This makes it seem more like a punishment than any constructive, if misguided, communitarian initiative.
33
It is clearly the Ferguson model of judiciary. Since that works so well.
1
Why stop at only blood. Look at all the potential value to rendered from penniless offenders in the form or organs for transplant. Whatever's left can be sold off for the tallow to make soap.
This reminds me of life back on my dad's farm, where nothing left from the animals after slaughter went to waste.
This reminds me of life back on my dad's farm, where nothing left from the animals after slaughter went to waste.
22
Why stop with blood? Why not sperm? How about a kidney?
9
I find myself not surprised one iota. Historically the equivalent of blood has been extracted from the poor and minorities going back to emancipation. After emancipation the method was to arrest someone(usually black) and charge them with stealing a chicken or loaf of bread, and then sentence them to hard labor(in some cases for years). In the south the "chain gangs" were rented out to a local concern with the county keeping the money(of course the warden also got his cut). Today municipalities run roughshod over those already victimized by society by stopping and issuing summons and citations to prop up said municipal budgets. We even now have organizations like the DEA doing "cold consent" mainly on the poor and minorities by using federal forfeiture laws to steal their money and belongings. Police across this country are bolstering their budgets by getting in on the seizure act and getting a cut from the feds. So I find myself not surprised at all that they now want blood. Next it will be organs and body parts.
10
As a criminal lawyer, I recoil from deeply misguided efforts to innovate the sentencing process. This "idea" is plainly unconstitutional for many reasons, and I would hope that Alabama appellate courts make short shrift of it. And there's always the Supreme Court which--sometimes divided--would have little difficulty here, reversing any order upholding this awful practice.
36
Jailing (or extending sentences of) the indigent for being too poor to pay fines is also unconstitutional, as reflected by at least three different Supreme Court rulings.
Obviously you have never been owed money from people such as these. How would you get this money from these people if they owed it to you? You better get used to excuses. I believe the Judge has figured out a way for those excuses to be invalid, at least for the first 100 bucks.
This is coercion just like plea bargaining can coerce an innocent person to plead guilty for fear of an unjust conviction.
6
A penny for your thoughts, a pound of flesh for your freedom.
A lot of things that on first seem like good ideas are really don't produce the outcome desired. Jumping out of the boat into the middle of the Amazon River to escape the tropical heat comes to mind.
A lot of things that on first seem like good ideas are really don't produce the outcome desired. Jumping out of the boat into the middle of the Amazon River to escape the tropical heat comes to mind.
2
So would it be okay for the defendant to go and sell his blood and then use the proceeds to pay the fine? I doubt what the open market pays would cover the fine. And what about sentences of community service? This whole thing is very murky ethically, but so is the whole criminal justice system that allows the rich to buy their way out of jail time. We could go back to "Do the crime, do the time" for everyone.
1
Aside from being unconstitutional, coercing people to give blood is dangerous and unethical. Potential blood donors are asked to self-report on a number of conditions and behaviors, which heighten the risk that their blood may contain pathogens. Some people should also avoid being blood donors because giving blood can be harmful to them. People who are being pressured to donate blood may withhold information on disqualifying conditions.
The company and the personnel that accepted these donors, knowing that there was an element of coercion, need to be sanctioned and maybe taken out of the business of donor blood collection.
The company and the personnel that accepted these donors, knowing that there was an element of coercion, need to be sanctioned and maybe taken out of the business of donor blood collection.
9
This is just one (rather egregious) example of how the criminal justice system is abused to exploit the poor for petty offences. Just another way to kick people when they're already down.
8
Most states do not allow people to sell body parts ---- organs and blood content is cruical to the function of the body. Therefore encouraging people to part with their life force or blood under force of law is wrong ---- Judge Marvin Wiggins’s should be removed, what next two fingers for a speeding tickets?
2
So had the judge simply forced them all into prison ... that would be better?
We should be encouraging Judges to engage in out-of-the-box thinking when it comes to civil violations with respect to those without the means to pay. Putting them in jail can have terrible consequences, resulting in loss of jobs and housing. But at the same time, civil order would simply fall apart if there are no penalties for minor crimes.
Judge Wiggins came up with an unconventional but apparently once common place solution which (a) imposes a penalty, (b) creates a benefit, and (c) creates a benefit that DOES NOT flow to the Court or government, which was the problem in a lot of municipalities that use civil fines as a means of funding.
We should be encouraging Judges to engage in out-of-the-box thinking when it comes to civil violations with respect to those without the means to pay. Putting them in jail can have terrible consequences, resulting in loss of jobs and housing. But at the same time, civil order would simply fall apart if there are no penalties for minor crimes.
Judge Wiggins came up with an unconventional but apparently once common place solution which (a) imposes a penalty, (b) creates a benefit, and (c) creates a benefit that DOES NOT flow to the Court or government, which was the problem in a lot of municipalities that use civil fines as a means of funding.
19
The brackets around the WHOLE scenario is that this is a fundraising effort, not some brand new idea of helping poor people. This is about replacing lost funding when you do not charge for services in your town and elect morons that tell you it does not cost anything to run your judiciary, your schools, pave your roads, etc.
Offering to let poor folks give blood to an outfit that just had to pay millions for a suit for HIV tainted blood is not what I would call "creative".
Offering to let poor folks give blood to an outfit that just had to pay millions for a suit for HIV tainted blood is not what I would call "creative".
7
I appreciate a court that will look for creative options for low income defendants, but this was not really an option. Community service options could be made available.
Just in case you did not read the last few sentences of the article:
"However, Sara Zampierin, a lawyer at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said that in the handful of instances she reviewed of people who gave blood, none had received the $100 discount they had been promised."
According to actual evidence, the coerced blood "donations" were not actually used to offset fines or jail time for these people.
"However, Sara Zampierin, a lawyer at the Southern Poverty Law Center, said that in the handful of instances she reviewed of people who gave blood, none had received the $100 discount they had been promised."
According to actual evidence, the coerced blood "donations" were not actually used to offset fines or jail time for these people.
2
I like Judge Wiggins creative way of giving convicts an option that allows them to avoid jail time. What's wrong with the option?
2
What is wrong with it is that these people should not have been facing "jail time" at all. The stated purpose of this "hearing" was to raise $$ for the municipality from people who were already known to the court not to have the ability to pay. You are basically saying that they should be thankful that they were not sent to debtor's prison? That was outlawed eons ago. Secondly, and this is the absolute kicker, of the people who were coerced into this invasive, and being stabbed by a large needle is invasive, procedure under the guise of having their fines paid/reduced, not a single one "got credit" for their ordeal; the fines were not affected whatsoever.
1
Well, to start with, they're not "convicts."
These are people on the losing end of minor infractions that included fines. The fines, FYI, are NOT assessed in the "interests of justice" but are openly stated to be a revenue source for the city and county (primarily because Alabama is a state which will use any means possible to avoid actually paying for things by taxation).
So, if you are poor down there, got a minor ticket for something and couldn't pay the fine, Judge Wiggins is now offering you three choices: pay up (with money you don't have), go to jail (debtor's prison, anyone?) or risk you life (or the lives of others) by being forced to donate blood against your wishes.
These are people on the losing end of minor infractions that included fines. The fines, FYI, are NOT assessed in the "interests of justice" but are openly stated to be a revenue source for the city and county (primarily because Alabama is a state which will use any means possible to avoid actually paying for things by taxation).
So, if you are poor down there, got a minor ticket for something and couldn't pay the fine, Judge Wiggins is now offering you three choices: pay up (with money you don't have), go to jail (debtor's prison, anyone?) or risk you life (or the lives of others) by being forced to donate blood against your wishes.
The problem is that it motivates people to lie on the blood donation form, which makes it more likely that a serious disease could be transmitted. That's actually the reason why we just don't pay more for blood, which would eliminate the shortage permanently -- as it's a lot safer if most people give their blood, as people with serious diseases will not give.
1
As a physician, this is a very bad idea. As pointed out in this article, coercing people into donating blood encourages them to lie about their personal exposures that raise the risk that they carry a disease transmissible in the blood product. These exposures would disqualify them from donation. While most potentially infectious blood products will be caught by testing the blood before transfusion, this practice only makes the blood supply less safe.
7
And note that the story points out the firm collecting the blood has been on the losing end of a lawsuit for poor practices that resulted in spreading HIV-tainted blood! This is so wrong on so many, many levels!
A perfect example of why we shouldn't believe that just because a judge has that title he or she is capable of "judging" situations in a reasonable, informed manner.
Shameful! I expect that there will be a hue and cry from both ACLU and NAACP for Mr. Wiggins to step down.
Shameful! I expect that there will be a hue and cry from both ACLU and NAACP for Mr. Wiggins to step down.
3
Sentencing should have nothing to do with the court's finances, and the court's finances (or lack thereof) should have nothing to do with issuing an appropriate legal sentence.
And debtor's prison was outlawed years ago, if I'm not mistaken.
And debtor's prison was outlawed years ago, if I'm not mistaken.
5
Giving blood is not invasive: they take blood out, they don't put something in.
Giving blood is donating for the good of the community.
According to the story, donating blood is voluntary. Anyone can refuse to participate.
The option of donating platelets or white blood cells should also be offered as an option.
Giving blood is donating for the good of the community.
According to the story, donating blood is voluntary. Anyone can refuse to participate.
The option of donating platelets or white blood cells should also be offered as an option.
2
Giving blood IS an invasive procedure -- inserting needles opens the body to pathogens and leaves at least one opening through which more can march right in.
2
Bob, they don't slash your vein and collect the blood as it spills out. They insert a needle through your skin, muscle tissue and then into a vein. They then leave that needle sitting IN your vein for however long it takes to extract the blood.
Now, last time I checked, inserting a needle inside one's body is defined by the medical profession as an invasive procedure, since the body must by definition be invaded to collect the blood.
According to the story, most of those given this option were told very clearly their choice was to pay their fines, despite most being officially classed as indigent (meaning, in all 50 states, they can't be forced to pay fines they don't have money to pay, unless and until they gain a job and income), go to jail, or donate blood. You really don't see the coercion to this?
Notice also that the firm collecting the blood has already been on the losing end of a major lawsuit for spreading HIV-tainted blood! Would you put your health into their obviously incapable hands? If someone took the judge's urging to donate and contracted HIV, can they now sue the Judge, the city/county and the blood collectors?
Oh, and did you see the part about pretty much ALL the blood collected being thrown out? Sounds more like Judge Wiggins is simply encouraging the creation of dangerous biological waste to me!
Now, last time I checked, inserting a needle inside one's body is defined by the medical profession as an invasive procedure, since the body must by definition be invaded to collect the blood.
According to the story, most of those given this option were told very clearly their choice was to pay their fines, despite most being officially classed as indigent (meaning, in all 50 states, they can't be forced to pay fines they don't have money to pay, unless and until they gain a job and income), go to jail, or donate blood. You really don't see the coercion to this?
Notice also that the firm collecting the blood has already been on the losing end of a major lawsuit for spreading HIV-tainted blood! Would you put your health into their obviously incapable hands? If someone took the judge's urging to donate and contracted HIV, can they now sue the Judge, the city/county and the blood collectors?
Oh, and did you see the part about pretty much ALL the blood collected being thrown out? Sounds more like Judge Wiggins is simply encouraging the creation of dangerous biological waste to me!
32
Someone didn't get off his bicycle long enough to actually read the article.
3
I simply cannot believe that such a practice could occur in the United States. This is horrible, immoral conduct on the part of judicial officials. When will those same judges, or others, start demanding a kidney or an eye? This needs to be stopped at once.
1
It's another sad day in America when a judge decides he can act in such a reckless way. It is an outrage that someone who should be impartial and honorable feels so immune from consequences would do such a thing. Judge Wiggins should have his own day in a real court with a good judge.
4
What could possibly go wrong with that?
1
I guess this judge has found a precedent and went hogwild in implementing the process. However this maniac of a jurist should be ashamed of himself.
1
Um... It's ok for a judge to give a young offender a choice between jail and military service but asking them to donate blood is wrong for 3000 reasons?
1
"Um... It's ok for a judge to give a young offender a choice between jail and military service"
As far as I can tell that is not OK. The military won't accept applicants under those conditions.
As far as I can tell that is not OK. The military won't accept applicants under those conditions.
Great idea. No longer will they have the excuse that they were put in jail they have options!
1
While being indigent isn't an excuse for disobeying the law, the article admits these prosecutions and subsequent enforcement hearings are primarily intended to raise money and therefore not in the exclusive interests of justice or publlic welfare.
Since the stated median income appears below or near the poverty line, assessing monetary fines for minor infractions in the first place may be unconsitutional. While it appears the underlying charges are not criminal, but subsequent incarceration for inability to pay the monetary fine accessed from the bench trial is imposed raises the concern of the accused right to counsel.
Since the stated median income appears below or near the poverty line, assessing monetary fines for minor infractions in the first place may be unconsitutional. While it appears the underlying charges are not criminal, but subsequent incarceration for inability to pay the monetary fine accessed from the bench trial is imposed raises the concern of the accused right to counsel.
4
Utterly ridiculous. So are some of these fines as a way to "generate revenue" for communities. Community service hours as part of punishment for crimes is fine, but coercing someone into giving blood on the spot is risky for everyone.
1
But isn't giving blood a community service? Why one type and not another?
Furthermore, there is an easy way to avoid the situation - don't get caught violating the law, or if you do get caught, pay your fine.
Furthermore, there is an easy way to avoid the situation - don't get caught violating the law, or if you do get caught, pay your fine.
What's next? ... Donate a kidney or go to jail? This judge needs to be censored, and/or removed from the bench.
If you find yourself needing to drive through Alabama, I suggest you lie low (figuratively speaking), say "yes, sir" to any authority figure in a uniform, and obey ALL speed limit signs (draining $$ through traffic ticket fines is the major source of income for many rural police/sheriff departments). Not to mention trying not to rouse the volatile natives driving around with plenty of guns in their vehicles--and that's not including the police!
5
While I agree the tactics are a bit off, the comments here are just as ridiculous.
No, giving blood is not the same as an organ - so let's ease up with the "are organs next?" comments.
All he did was give the offenders an additional choice. First their options were: pay or go to jail. Now its: pay or give blood or go to jail. They're not really being "forced" to do anything.
No, giving blood is not the same as an organ - so let's ease up with the "are organs next?" comments.
All he did was give the offenders an additional choice. First their options were: pay or go to jail. Now its: pay or give blood or go to jail. They're not really being "forced" to do anything.
2
I know this is illegal and maybe immoral, but I have no problem with this. No one is forced to give blood, they could go to jail instead. Blood donations are always needed. Perhaps, once the donors see how easy donating blood is, they may go to their local blood center and donate on their own.
Besides, blood centers give out other incentives all the time. My local center rewards frequent donors with gift cards, baseball tickets, sweatshirts...
Besides, blood centers give out other incentives all the time. My local center rewards frequent donors with gift cards, baseball tickets, sweatshirts...
What is the big deal? If it is constitutional to give people a choice between paying a fine or going to jail, what is wrong with giving them a third choice of donating blood? They are not being forced to give.
Well I guess if donating blood to an outfit that just settled a 4million buck lawsuit for an HIV-tainted infusion is your idea of "a choice", then go for it.
1
Judge Wiggins: Did you summon LifeSouth or they happen to be in the area?
Your "judgement" or lack thereof says you're a felon in the court of public opinion.
The people of Alabama do not deserve you.
Your "judgement" or lack thereof says you're a felon in the court of public opinion.
The people of Alabama do not deserve you.
Please do more investigations into this small town police revenue business. This is what is replacing taxes for revenue in the South. Literally demanding blood - now there's a new one. Is any of this stuff legal?
My mother's small town in Texas sent a notice that someone had complained that they could not see around a corner because of tree foliage that ended 6 feet INSIDE her yard from the stop sign. It was so absurd we assumed they had made a mistake- the place is as flat as a pancake, so if you cannot see around that corner, then you are a legally blind person. About 3 months later we received "an intent to place a lien" on my 91yo mother's home if we didn't pay $115. They had no picture to show. They would have to auction my mother's house they said if she did not comply. I guess this is the Orwellian paradise the Tea Party intends to bring to All.
My mother's small town in Texas sent a notice that someone had complained that they could not see around a corner because of tree foliage that ended 6 feet INSIDE her yard from the stop sign. It was so absurd we assumed they had made a mistake- the place is as flat as a pancake, so if you cannot see around that corner, then you are a legally blind person. About 3 months later we received "an intent to place a lien" on my 91yo mother's home if we didn't pay $115. They had no picture to show. They would have to auction my mother's house they said if she did not comply. I guess this is the Orwellian paradise the Tea Party intends to bring to All.
9
No judge with any decency would give a person an option to give blood in lieu of a fine. If they don't have the money, then a reasonable payment plan could be worked out. What next, give a kidney as penalty for a felony?
2
- Praise for Judge Wiggins' courage and thoughtful act of kindness.
- Shame on our elected leaders, and the wealthy that own them, for their debauchery, cowardice and deceit.
- Shame on our citizens, voters and non-voters, for prioritizing entertainment over governance.
- Praise for NYT's culture of excellence and success maintaining high-standards of journalism. The Gray Lady stands proud, like the Statue of Liberty, in the face of Bezos/Washington Post, Murdoch/Wall Street Journal and Putin/Crimea.
- Shame on our elected leaders, and the wealthy that own them, for their debauchery, cowardice and deceit.
- Shame on our citizens, voters and non-voters, for prioritizing entertainment over governance.
- Praise for NYT's culture of excellence and success maintaining high-standards of journalism. The Gray Lady stands proud, like the Statue of Liberty, in the face of Bezos/Washington Post, Murdoch/Wall Street Journal and Putin/Crimea.
Why so much negativism? The cost to society of incarceration is considerable, even for a few days. At least these people can do something positive for society without any adverse effects to themselves. A pint of blood is easily replaced by oneself in a few hours, and is screened before it ever makes it into the system.
So public money is served, public good advanced, and perhaps the "perps" might even learn something.
So public money is served, public good advanced, and perhaps the "perps" might even learn something.
1
Clearly you didn't even read the article. Hospitals do not accept blood collected for any compensation, so this blood is helping absolutely no one. Secondly, out of the many coerced into undergoing this invasive procedure not a single one was compensated or had their fines reduced at all. Also, the "perps" that you speak of are citizens and could easily be your neighbor or family member. What are you implying that these poor citizens need to "learn"? Is it how to not be in poverty? Is it to change their appearance so as not to be targeted by police solely to extract arbitrary fines? Perhaps you meant that they should learn how to pull wads of magical cash off of the trees (we all know money grows on those things, right?) when presented with bogus "municipal citations"?
Donating blood *is* a type of community service.
1
What if the offender has AIDS? Could a family member then donate the blood or would Alabama throw the criminal in jail for twice the time. Knowing that place most likely the latter.
So, the blood that was extorted was discarded, and the people didn't even get the discount in their fines they had been promised?? What in the world was the point of this ridiculous exercise? It served no purpose at all. It was just a waste of the court's time and the offender's time. And, if some of the offenders were already making timely payments on their obligations, why were they even called there that day? Judge Wiggins sounds like a nut whose power has gone to his head.
8
Once convicted, your sentence generally will include time in prison, fines and/or community service. Jail time (even when served on weekends) and fines can be devastating. Community service can also be difficult because of the time it takes away from families and jobs and because of transportation issues. Presumably for this reason, sometimes a defendant will choose jail time over community service. I agree with the other commenters that as long as blood donation is an option and not coercive or punitive, this would be a positive form of community service. If there are other sentencing options out there, we should explore them.
11
But it is coercive if they are going to be thrown in jail because they don't want to give blood. This reminds my of Shakespeare's Shylock who demanded a pound of flesh from a debtor.
How about prostitution then? Would it be okay for the court to order the woman who can't pay her fine to make some money selling her body? Of course not. She doesn't have to let the government take her blood either.
"jail time ... served on weekends" ? Does the convict get to choose when he serves time. Oops, I have been politically incorrect, I meant "he or she serves time".
Debtors prison needs to be eliminated. Along with usurious fines. These injure the poorest and those with the least resources.
Disgraceful.
Disgraceful.
This is beyond scary. Where does this end?
Then shut up, pay the fine or go to jail. Seriously do these folks just expect the judge to waive away their fines?
2
While the powers that be in the backward red state of Alabama are ordering that miscreants too poor to pay their fines donate blood, why not have them give up their first born as well. This is yet another outrage and part of the war being waged on the poor. Shame on this heartless judge and all who support him !
3
Once again, the biggest crime anyone can commit in this country is being poor.
8
A person who might be an intravenous drug user, or have some other reason why they shouldn't give blood, might be induced to lie on the questionnaire in order to get out of going to jail.
3
What the heck is wrong with Alabama? As soon as I saw the headline, I thought, "this must be Alabama." What did they do there, resurrect Torquemada? Oops, I guess they wouldn't do that, since they drove all the Hispanics out of Alabama.
1
It's comforting to know that stupidity is an equal opportunity condition!
1
Where do they get these judges? Aside from the obvious illegalities, requiring blood donation indicates pretty limited thinking. Better to offer a list of constructive activities from which the defendants could choose. Surely Marion has some volunteer work needs.
21
It's a classic Deep South small town dysfunction. Isolation breeds idiocy.
So now we live in a country where if you're rich you can buy your way out of anything, if you're poor you either go to jail or donate your blood? What's next organs? This country is becoming more like Saudi Arabia every day.
Whatever happened to community service?
Whatever happened to community service?
24
What do you mean "now?" It has always been this way. The justice system was never set up to do anything but enrich the lawyers and punish the lowest classes.
Get real!
Get real!
I don't quite understand the reference to "community service obligations." Were people told they could do community service? That seems like a reasonable alternative to paying a fine.
>>the employee who set up the blood drive with the courthouse had acted improperly because the employee understood ahead of time that the judge would reduce community service obligations for those willing to donate, a violation of company policy.
>>the employee who set up the blood drive with the courthouse had acted improperly because the employee understood ahead of time that the judge would reduce community service obligations for those willing to donate, a violation of company policy.
2
Why on earth is this considered unfair but forced birth ok? We accept the idea that our bodily integrity is so sacred that we can't even be given the choice between fines, jail or giving blood (which takes very little time and poses almost no ) we've committed a misdemeanors but women, even minors, can be forced to use their body to create another human at the risk of health, even life not to mention social and economic welfare? Though they committed no crime?
19
Sounds like "The law west of the Pecos" a must read.
2
Alabama should seriously consider succeeding from this nation so they can remain in the 15th century.. are we as a nation going to do anything about this?
8
Judge Wiggins is a maniac -- and it would be true irony to discover that he's also worried that someday Shariah law will be imposed in Alabama.
2
Giving bloodrhas so many restrictions, including a list of drugs that eliminate many prospective donors. Community service is a much broader-based alternative to donating blood.
5
Well, I suppose in Alabama there's always the chain gang. We can dispense with such "invasive" penalties and just sentence someone to working with a sledge hammer making little things out of big things.
4
I would rather see prisoners working on a chain gang than sitting around in an air conditioned jail doing nothing at my expense.
People who cannot pay their fines should be able to work it off via prostitution or selling a kidney to the court system. Sounds horrible? Sucking the blood out of a person's arm is a terrible idea that violates the indigent person's rights. Cutting them open and removing an organ or two or "getting busy" in the backseat of the paddy wagon isn't too far down the road.
This judge does not belong on the bench. He needs therapy, counseling, and medication.
This judge does not belong on the bench. He needs therapy, counseling, and medication.
9
There is a lot of hyperbole around this, it's a blood drive, not a kidney harvest. Many people give blood regularly it's easy to do, greatly needed and the Red Cross gives you a cookie to say thanks. The judge set himself up, but sitting with needle in your arm for less than an hour to 'give' something that your body will replace, relieving a person of being incarcerated or paying fines that they can't afford, I've heard worse - like putting people in jail for being unable to afford bail for nuisance charges. Yes, the health ramifications are real and if someone isn't eligible to donate, that shouldn't preclude them of having an alternative 'service' to do in lieu of jail time. The system is broken.
5
Well the article stated that the blood was not used and the fines were not reduced, so it sounds like some exercise in absurdity is the reality of this. Along with trying to run a city without charging regular people what it actually takes to run a town.
This is not a harmless Red Cross blood drive. By pressuring people to donate blood, you run the risk of getting blood from donors who do not honestly disclose the medications that they are taking and/or their medical histories. I gave blood to the Red Cross last month and I was extremely diligent about documenting my health, my physician prescribed drug regimens and my travel history. Individuals giving blood to escape jail may not be as forthcoming and this can seriously contaminate our nation’s blood supply.
100% agreed that blood shouldn't be used that isn't able to be documented as absolutely meeting the standard. Having an alternative to jail/money would be good - a blood drive, when appropriate, would seem less onerous than a lot of things that could be asked of someone. IMHO, the over the top hand wringing of 'taking someone's blood!!! as if that is a horrible process in and of itself, it isn't. If because it was ill thought out, they couldn't use the blood, the person who donated should still get the benefits promised, aka the get out of jail free card.
What if the defendant has a religious objection to donating blood? There are so many things wrong with this judge's tactics, it is hard to know where to begin.
4
You seem to be missing the point that this was an option. If the defendant is superstitious then he has the usual options.
The "Merchant of Venice" in real life.
7
I'd like to believe that the judge had good intentions.
The judge probably doesn't understand the rules regarding blood donation. There are so many conditions that disqualify a potential donor (e.g. being sick during the past month, travelling outside the country, injecting drugs, homosexual activity (for men), recent tattoos or piercings, new sexual partner, using certain prescription drugs, the list goes on) that this is patently unfair.
However, not a single person has brought up the most obvious objection: a person may only give blood every three (men) or four (women) months.
The judge probably doesn't understand the rules regarding blood donation. There are so many conditions that disqualify a potential donor (e.g. being sick during the past month, travelling outside the country, injecting drugs, homosexual activity (for men), recent tattoos or piercings, new sexual partner, using certain prescription drugs, the list goes on) that this is patently unfair.
However, not a single person has brought up the most obvious objection: a person may only give blood every three (men) or four (women) months.
6
In the US eligible people can donate every 8 weeks.
There’s something ugly and archaic about poor, mostly black people reporting to a court because they owe traffic fines.
Marion, Alabama is two-thirds black. The per capita income is $11,934. About a third of the population live below the poverty line.
Why set traffic fines so high that most people in the community cannot afford to pay them? Many here would say traffic fines serve as a deterrent and punishment for breaking traffic laws, so they must inflict pain.
But if this is true, the system is deeply flawed. The same $300 fine for a high-income person can be no deterrent or a punishment at all. How is this fair?
Poor people (i.e., most people) shouldn't be made to pay large traffic fines, their fines and court fees should be set at affordable amounts, say $5 to $25. Better yet, traffic fines should be set as a percentage of income, so everyone has the same relative deterrent and punishment.
For example, a person working full-time making minimum wage earns about $1,300 per month. A $300 fine is about 23% of gross income. So, for the same infraction, a person earning $100,000 per year should pay about $2,000, and earnings of $1 million annually would pay a $20,000 fine. How is this less fair than the current system?
European countries have linked traffic fines to income for years. He says Finland regularly levels fines of more than $100,000 on wealthy drivers; Switzerland has a maximum traffic fine of $1 million and Germany’s is $16 million.
Marion, Alabama is two-thirds black. The per capita income is $11,934. About a third of the population live below the poverty line.
Why set traffic fines so high that most people in the community cannot afford to pay them? Many here would say traffic fines serve as a deterrent and punishment for breaking traffic laws, so they must inflict pain.
But if this is true, the system is deeply flawed. The same $300 fine for a high-income person can be no deterrent or a punishment at all. How is this fair?
Poor people (i.e., most people) shouldn't be made to pay large traffic fines, their fines and court fees should be set at affordable amounts, say $5 to $25. Better yet, traffic fines should be set as a percentage of income, so everyone has the same relative deterrent and punishment.
For example, a person working full-time making minimum wage earns about $1,300 per month. A $300 fine is about 23% of gross income. So, for the same infraction, a person earning $100,000 per year should pay about $2,000, and earnings of $1 million annually would pay a $20,000 fine. How is this less fair than the current system?
European countries have linked traffic fines to income for years. He says Finland regularly levels fines of more than $100,000 on wealthy drivers; Switzerland has a maximum traffic fine of $1 million and Germany’s is $16 million.
8
Creative, yes, but not everyone appearing before this judge should give blood for a variety of very medical reasons. And, discrimination based on not wanting or not being able to donate blood should not place one at the mercy of handcuffs and jail time.
2
Oh, Alabama, why?! So embarrassing, and such an indictment of everything that is wrong with the criminal justice system in Alabama and in the U.S. in general.
3
Well some of us always thought that Alabama courts were vampiric and now the cat's out of the bag.
3
Everyone gripes about everything. 24 hours news programs feed this frenzy.
I remember as a young teenager in the early 60's having been pulled over by police and having a patrolman confiscate our entire ice chest of beer. Darn right we were upset. It was difficult to get someone to purchase that beer for us and now it was gone. Did we gripe to the authorities that a police officer took our beer and did not arrest us? NO
In the late 60's my younger brother took my parents car for a spin one night without my parent's knowledge. Plowed through someone's fence and hit their tree. When the policeman arrived, he placed my brother in his car, brought him home and told my father to settle up with the home owner. Did we gripe because my brother was not arrested? Hell NO.
In the early 70's my father lost control and left the road after a drunken night. The police officer placed my father in the patrol car and brought him home. Did we gripe that my father was not arrested? No. Oh and by the way, my father never drank again following that night.
I have a ton of stories involving friends and relatives. Life is what it is. Take the kindness that someone of authority offers. Roll with the punches, learn from your mistakes.
I remember as a young teenager in the early 60's having been pulled over by police and having a patrolman confiscate our entire ice chest of beer. Darn right we were upset. It was difficult to get someone to purchase that beer for us and now it was gone. Did we gripe to the authorities that a police officer took our beer and did not arrest us? NO
In the late 60's my younger brother took my parents car for a spin one night without my parent's knowledge. Plowed through someone's fence and hit their tree. When the policeman arrived, he placed my brother in his car, brought him home and told my father to settle up with the home owner. Did we gripe because my brother was not arrested? Hell NO.
In the early 70's my father lost control and left the road after a drunken night. The police officer placed my father in the patrol car and brought him home. Did we gripe that my father was not arrested? No. Oh and by the way, my father never drank again following that night.
I have a ton of stories involving friends and relatives. Life is what it is. Take the kindness that someone of authority offers. Roll with the punches, learn from your mistakes.
1
Well maybe update the files on Memory Lane.
The new "aggressive" way of paying the bills is to fine people big fines, mess with their lives, and if you are not white, possibly not return from your encounter, not have Officer Friendly pat you on the head and take your beer chest away.
The new "aggressive" way of paying the bills is to fine people big fines, mess with their lives, and if you are not white, possibly not return from your encounter, not have Officer Friendly pat you on the head and take your beer chest away.
1
Let me guess, Jim: you're not black and you're not poor. If you were one or both, it's likely the outcomes of your anecdotes would be quite different. But as long as you've got yours, everything's fine — right?
I worry more about the medical ethicist who doesn't think blood donations are a benefit to public health.
1
As law enforcement and judicial budgets decrease, they have decided to collect money from where ever they can. Taking cash from people, making people pay fines in perpetuity, ticketing for any violation, it's all about the cash. OTOH, prison want more prisoners and not let people go by just paying fines, it's a revenue loss for them. Once startup technology gets more involved in fighting crime, the situation is about to get worse for all police and judicial departments.
2
Sounds like judicial supremecy. I am the judge and I can do 'anything'. Hopefully his boss will take him down a peg or two.
Oh boo hu hu Donating blood is one's duty. People should be grateful to have the chance to be of use for once.
2
I don't know what concerns me more, Judge Wiggins' blood-for-freedom scheme or the fact that everyone spoken to about this article feels the people he was addressing in his courtroom have tainted blood or that it appears we still don't test our blood supply 100%. It's 2015 for Pete's sake. Do we not have funding in place to test all our blood? If so, that is beyond tragic.
1
Justice is blind because Justice was forced to donate both eyes after a jay-walking and loitering conviction.
7
Why is blood that is given by poor people considered bad?
I find many of these comments racist. The blood is tested. I really dont know about the Judge's actions, but the tone of many of these comments just plain stinks.
I find many of these comments racist. The blood is tested. I really dont know about the Judge's actions, but the tone of many of these comments just plain stinks.
3
Did you read this article?
The Blood Center they are using just lost a "$4 million judgment for an HIV-tainted blood transfusion"- so maybe the poor don't want to give blood to an outfit like this.
After a complaint, the blood was discarded.
The article also said no one had received the $100 reduction to their fine. NO ONE.
So maybe it is not that people are racist, it is that the poor are not stupid.
The Blood Center they are using just lost a "$4 million judgment for an HIV-tainted blood transfusion"- so maybe the poor don't want to give blood to an outfit like this.
After a complaint, the blood was discarded.
The article also said no one had received the $100 reduction to their fine. NO ONE.
So maybe it is not that people are racist, it is that the poor are not stupid.
1
Many courts set fines and costs running into the thousands of dollars then offer the individual the option of paying these costs off by doing volunteer work at minimum wage. The end result is the person has to do hundreds of hours of work to avoid paying the court imposed fees. A pint of blood ,,, a hundred hours working, what's the dif?
1
So, if you are poor, you can pay in blood. Maybe a kidney could prevent eviction? College debt? Consider selling your ova or a kidney.
We have entered a strange world devoid of morals. Indentured servitude and slavery will follow the sale of vital organs.
We have entered a strange world devoid of morals. Indentured servitude and slavery will follow the sale of vital organs.
3
There are a lot of misinformed comments regarding blood donation. Many of us have donated blood for decades without problems. It is NOT an invasive procedure at all! No physical is needed but obviously the donor should be healthy. Donated blood is tested and those with diseases are not candidates. Blood donation also benefits society. A $100 court credit for less than an hours inconvenience is a good deal for those without funds and healthy enough to participate. It is then the donors choice. What is the problem?
1
The problem is that you are forcing people to either donate blood or go to jail...
1
One problem is your misunderstanding of the term "invasive." Any procedure that enters your body -- whether heart transplant surgery or a simple flu shot -- is, by definition, invasive. So, yes, inserting a needle into a vein to remove a bodily fluid is most certainly an invasive procedure.
Another problem is that what may be a "good deal" for the healthy discriminates against the less healthy.
Another problem is that what may be a "good deal" for the healthy discriminates against the less healthy.
1
"What is the problem?"
The law. Human decency. Basic morality. But as a "sad taxpayer" I'm sure you wouldn't want an extra penny spent to uphold any of these.
The law. Human decency. Basic morality. But as a "sad taxpayer" I'm sure you wouldn't want an extra penny spent to uphold any of these.
If we force the poverty class to give blood in lieu of paying monetary fines, what will we ask for in the future - an organ donation? The ethical question is obvious - there is no freedom of choice here - therefore, it should be declared unconstitutional.
2
This Hobson's choice is only imposed of the poor. The judge felt free to do so because he knows they are without power or influence.
Traffic fines, among others, should be tied to income and/net wotth, as is done in much of northern Europe (max traffic fine in Germany is $16M) --that way the deterent and punishment aspects of traffic violations are proportionate to all.
Traffic fines, among others, should be tied to income and/net wotth, as is done in much of northern Europe (max traffic fine in Germany is $16M) --that way the deterent and punishment aspects of traffic violations are proportionate to all.
2
Requiring a person to relinquish blood is really ghoulish now that Halloween is near. And it is positively Medieval now that we live in the 21st Century, even if it is happening in Alabama. How about giving up a kidney for an offense more heinous than possession of marijuana?
What do they do for people who cannot give blood?
3
handcuffs, as judge Dredd said.
A pound of flesh?
Money, blood or jail.
Should society think that, if you have no money you should go free after you commit a crime. Where do we go after that? A pint of blood is nothing. Maybe the answer is: Don't commit the crime.
The bail system is pretty much an American anomaly, and a relic of a distant past. Nobody should simply go free... AFTER they have been declared guilty in a trial. Before that, they should be held in custody if they are at a risk of fleeing or committing other crimes, or else should be set free while awaiting the result of the trial. Money have no place in this.
The problem is, rather, that people seem to think that if you DO have money, then you can go free after you commit a crime... that's the bail system for you.
The problem is, rather, that people seem to think that if you DO have money, then you can go free after you commit a crime... that's the bail system for you.
Blood? Why stop there? A kidney would balance the books.
11
Blood is renewable and, in fact, the body must remake blood all the time and this is why it is relatively easy to give, repeatedly. Human organs do not replace themselves after 30 or 40 days.
The comparison is absurd.
The comparison is absurd.
Apart from the clear ethics violation of the state essentially buying blood, this is a medically dangerous practice. If for medical reasons one cannot donate blood but would be incarcerated otherwise, there is a clear incentive to lie during the screening process and "rely" instead on the testing of the blood sample. There is a screening process for a reason!
I hemorrhaged once many years ago and needed four units of blood. I shudder to think I may have received blood obtained under these circumstances.
This practice is an appalling violation of both medical and legal ethics, a violation of the offender's rights and dangerous to society. I am stunned that some people think this might be beneficial or an acceptable practice.
I hemorrhaged once many years ago and needed four units of blood. I shudder to think I may have received blood obtained under these circumstances.
This practice is an appalling violation of both medical and legal ethics, a violation of the offender's rights and dangerous to society. I am stunned that some people think this might be beneficial or an acceptable practice.
18
It seems simple: think about who it is that become judges and how, from their perches, they look down upon the rest of us as frail, inferior and barely worthy objects. Of course judges are going to have strange personality problems!
why are you all criticizing? These offenders have no money to pay their fines, the blood is needed, it is win win. I am surprised to learn the blood was discarded and not really tested. In France all blood donations are tested everytime- we had our own AIDS blood scandal./
Anti-constitutional??? How constitutional is it to force poor people to pay escalating fines for minor offenses, as said, some decades old?
Community service is good too, but we've all seen it lead to abuse, and of course bad memories about chain gangs, etc.
So, Bravo to the Judge!
A courageous judge who should get a break!!
Anti-constitutional??? How constitutional is it to force poor people to pay escalating fines for minor offenses, as said, some decades old?
Community service is good too, but we've all seen it lead to abuse, and of course bad memories about chain gangs, etc.
So, Bravo to the Judge!
A courageous judge who should get a break!!
18
Read the article. The company the judge made an agreement with paid a huge fine for AIDS tainted blood, and ended up discarding almost all the blood collected.
I am a frequent donor. I just donated a triple unit of platelets Saturday. This is outrageous. My mother was infected with HIV from a multi unit transfusion in 1981, before the virus was identified. We must not go backwards here. Every time I donate, five vials of blood are taken for testing. And the list of disqualifiers is astonishing.
I am a frequent donor. I just donated a triple unit of platelets Saturday. This is outrageous. My mother was infected with HIV from a multi unit transfusion in 1981, before the virus was identified. We must not go backwards here. Every time I donate, five vials of blood are taken for testing. And the list of disqualifiers is astonishing.
1
The broader picture is that people are being targeted for "crimes" to get city revenue, so a lot of these fines are bogus attempts to just get cash via the police dept. Politicians pretend it does not take money to run a town.
At the bottom of the article it states that no one has yet received the $100 off their fine, as promised.
At the bottom of the article it states that no one has yet received the $100 off their fine, as promised.
Did you read WHY this is happening?
This is a "new" idea to aggressively "help Alabama's struggling courts to raise money".
Why does red, Southern, and no tax Alabama need cash?
Because they brag about never raising taxes so they have no city revenue.
How do you get cash when you have to actually pay for things in your town when you brag about not charging for services from the people that use them?? Go after petty cash from the indigent as a revenue source along with cash from actual criminals. The whole thing is absurd.
This is a "new" idea to aggressively "help Alabama's struggling courts to raise money".
Why does red, Southern, and no tax Alabama need cash?
Because they brag about never raising taxes so they have no city revenue.
How do you get cash when you have to actually pay for things in your town when you brag about not charging for services from the people that use them?? Go after petty cash from the indigent as a revenue source along with cash from actual criminals. The whole thing is absurd.
I swear..this country is getting so STUPID it is absolutely mind-boggling.
5
I see nothing wrong with offering a choice, but the $100 credit should be given for attempting to give even if the donor is rejected by the blood bank. There is a long list of questions that must be answered by a donor before blood can be accepted, and there is a prick test for sufficient iron.
6
I would also say 100 dollars is too little.
Life during oligarchy.
10
Organs next?
11
Then there is the issue of folks who should not be allowed to give blood because of a low hematocrit or other health issues (folks who would be turned away from most donation centers). Such conditions are most likely to be found in folks who have the least capacity to pay fines.
5
I dunno... over half of adults are ineligible to donate for one reason or another...
2
and for a kidney, they'll wipe your outstanding debt from the books...
4
I don't know. Couldn't giving blood be seen as a form of community service? Perhaps if the judge had offered these folks more choices; sweep the streets for eight hours or donate a pint of blood. I think I know which one I'd choose.
I'd imagine many people who "work for a living" feel similarly coerced into doing something they do not want to do rather than face the harsh reality of no money for rent, food, etc.
Maybe you should look at the system that those "working people" are required to live under as equally oppressive:
...you think you're so clever and classless and free
well you're still all just peasants as far as I can see..."
(Working Man's Hero - John Lennon)
...you think you're so clever and classless and free
well you're still all just peasants as far as I can see..."
(Working Man's Hero - John Lennon)
What are the chances that if one of these donors has a discovered blood borne illness, they will be treated by the state of Alabama?
Or even contacted?
Or even contacted?
5
It's frightening how backwards and regressive certain aspects of American jurisprudence can be. The whole notion of using money (not to mention blood) for pretrial freedom is inherently unfair and straight from the dark ages.
You would think that with such large slice of the elite with law degrees and all employed by the system, you'd have enough bright minds to bring our laws up to civilized standards, but apparently not. And I am tempted to rationalize that this is yet another Alabama story, but in fact it's pervasive on a national level.
I do take solace, however, that this same justice system still uphold my right to read about it.
You would think that with such large slice of the elite with law degrees and all employed by the system, you'd have enough bright minds to bring our laws up to civilized standards, but apparently not. And I am tempted to rationalize that this is yet another Alabama story, but in fact it's pervasive on a national level.
I do take solace, however, that this same justice system still uphold my right to read about it.
7
If violators are given a choice of payment, service, or jail I don't have an issue for a judge to give an alternative option. The safety of the blood supply is my only concern. Volunteers have little incentive to donate if ineligible - paid donors, or donation in lieu of fines undermines the integrity of the blood supply.
2
What is it with the Deep South... the weather, the water or do they just drop some folks on their heads? Judge Marvin Wiggins and his tactics sounds like a character from central casting. Where's the quote: "And some Yankee newspaper is interfering in our affairs! "
10
The judge should be removed from office and disbarred. This "choice" has no place in a civilized society.
It is an indicia of the extreme lack of empathy and self absorption in our culture that some commentators feel that the threat of jail is not "forcing" defendants to comply with this offensive practice.
Try a day or two in jail and see how that works for you.
It is an indicia of the extreme lack of empathy and self absorption in our culture that some commentators feel that the threat of jail is not "forcing" defendants to comply with this offensive practice.
Try a day or two in jail and see how that works for you.
5
What will be next, enforced organ donation in lieu of larger fines?
4
I remember a friend from college in the 70's caught speeding in the south. He said the defendants walked into court at night, then the judge, the bailiff announced it was "not guilty night, you cannot plead no guilty".
1
Re: Mr. Green, 43, who owes thousands of dollars in connection with two marijuana-related convictions ..... Alabama should take a cue from the free states ( Colorado, Washington ) and restore the freedom we all once had before a conspiracy of lies, in 1938, brought the prohibition of the healthful marijuana plant.
3
This judge is clearly exceeding his authority. His ruling is clearly unconstitutional and illegal. Blood is a organ. It is no different to mandate the drawing of blood from a defendant than mandating the donation of a kidney or an eye. This must be stopped and charges must be brought against the judge for his removal and disbarment for his illegal actions.
5
These people broke the law and had fines they were no paying. He gave them a choice. He didn't mandate anything. Oh and blood isn't an organ.
Why stop at blood? Almost everyone has two kidneys. Livers regenerate. People can spare some bone marrow. Sperm? Eggs?
There really is no end to the innovation we can look to in this field. Why settle for cash or community service when you can go into the municipal body parts trade? That could earn even more than traffic cameras.
There really is no end to the innovation we can look to in this field. Why settle for cash or community service when you can go into the municipal body parts trade? That could earn even more than traffic cameras.
10
Marvin Wiggins is a disgrace as a judge and the setup is repulsive to the idea of justice. What next for Wiggins - donate a kidney and your felony can be dismissed?
4
"...Judge Wiggins, a circuit judge here in rural Alabama since 1999."
A DEMOCRAT (Bill Clinton) appointee, for those of you unable or unwilling to see through the New York Times' hackery.
A DEMOCRAT (Bill Clinton) appointee, for those of you unable or unwilling to see through the New York Times' hackery.
1
Read the article again. . . this was a state court judge, not a federal judge. Any judicial appointment would have been made by Alabama officials. The injection of party politics into this discussion is both incorrect and its own form of hackery.
6
News flash: Presidents of the United States don't appoint rural circuit judges in Alabama. In fact, nobody appointed Judge Wiggins -- his seat is elected.
For those unable or unwilling to see through Annie's hackery.
For those unable or unwilling to see through Annie's hackery.
4
Nope. State judge. Not federal.
Alabama not Arkansas.
Elected not appointed.
Alabama not Arkansas.
Elected not appointed.
4
I almost hesitate to say this but ..., well, okay ...., if you have a progressive income tax it will provide the revenue needed.
5
No words…just despicable action by a judge that to my mind should be taken off the bench and disbarred.
6
If your religious convictions prevent you from giving blood, how is that resolved...by imprisonment? This is debtor's prison injustice perpetuated on the poor i.e., no money, no representation.
7
Everyday it becomes more apparent that the "United States" is nothing much more than an archipelago of loosely-affiliated fiefdoms run by grifters. As a result, whether you get the legal protections of the Constitution has become a crap shoot based on where you live, the color of your skin, and the size of your bank account. Some cynics say it was ever thus, and maybe it was, but is that a good enough reason to let it get even worse?
18
Let's also bring back debtors' prisons...
5
This is unbelievable.
The Red Cross will not accept blood donations from, among things, men who say they engage in sexual relations with other men, but...a judge is going to...oh, never mind.
This is beyond stupid.
The Red Cross will not accept blood donations from, among things, men who say they engage in sexual relations with other men, but...a judge is going to...oh, never mind.
This is beyond stupid.
9
And they didn't even give them their discount. How much lower can this capitalist nation sink?
5
There are many things wrong with this episode. I will focus on only one.
Coercing people to give blood is a public health hazard, or nightmare if you prefer. Blood borne diseases--specifically hepatitis and HIV--are transmitted by practices (sex and drug use) that a surprising number of people do surreptitiously. They do not discuss it with their friends, spouses, clergy or anyone. And they do not want these behaviors to be revealed by their refusal to donate blood in a public setting, like an office or religious blood drive.
Accredited blood banks have a careful and extensive set of rules to avoid donations from high-risk individuals. The first line of defense is self selection. Most people know they will be asked personal questions before donating, so avoid the whole process. Second is the "confidential self-exclusion" process. Realizing the risk from the small number of very high risk individuals, the last step in registration is the selection of a yes-or-no bar code stuck to your form that allows people to go through the entire process of giving blood without the stigma of being denied.
The process to keep the blood supply as safe as possible is elaborate and well thought out (much more than 1500 characters). This judge used a simplistic and wrong-headed blunt instrument that puts the general public at danger. His knowledge of the complex blood banking industry is nil, and it sounds like his understanding of law and the Constitution only marginally better.
Coercing people to give blood is a public health hazard, or nightmare if you prefer. Blood borne diseases--specifically hepatitis and HIV--are transmitted by practices (sex and drug use) that a surprising number of people do surreptitiously. They do not discuss it with their friends, spouses, clergy or anyone. And they do not want these behaviors to be revealed by their refusal to donate blood in a public setting, like an office or religious blood drive.
Accredited blood banks have a careful and extensive set of rules to avoid donations from high-risk individuals. The first line of defense is self selection. Most people know they will be asked personal questions before donating, so avoid the whole process. Second is the "confidential self-exclusion" process. Realizing the risk from the small number of very high risk individuals, the last step in registration is the selection of a yes-or-no bar code stuck to your form that allows people to go through the entire process of giving blood without the stigma of being denied.
The process to keep the blood supply as safe as possible is elaborate and well thought out (much more than 1500 characters). This judge used a simplistic and wrong-headed blunt instrument that puts the general public at danger. His knowledge of the complex blood banking industry is nil, and it sounds like his understanding of law and the Constitution only marginally better.
18
I'm not sure this is the most efficient way to harvest donated blood. I mean, black folks are only three-fifths of a person so they don't have as much blood to give.
Maybe just have them sweep the front porch of Judge Wiggins' plantation and serve ice tea to his guests?
Maybe just have them sweep the front porch of Judge Wiggins' plantation and serve ice tea to his guests?
10
I'm assuming that you are suggesting that Judge Wiggins is white by your plantation comment. Just in case that is what you are saying, in the photo accompanying the article, the white man in the background is Governor Bentley. The African-American man in the front is Judge Wiggins.
It was the northerners who insisted that black people only be counted as 3/5ths of a person. The southerners wanted them counted as a whole person. Try reading once in a while.
Someone needs to check, to see whether or not the judge casts a shadow, or has a reflection in the mirror.
9
What comes next? Donating some of your organs like a kidney as you may not really need two?
6
There was a time in this country when judges routinely offered
young men convicted of crimes a choice between enlisting in the military or serving a jail sentence. I'm inclined to think that serving in the military did some of these men a lot of good. Or at least more good than a jail term.
young men convicted of crimes a choice between enlisting in the military or serving a jail sentence. I'm inclined to think that serving in the military did some of these men a lot of good. Or at least more good than a jail term.
1
>"serving in the military did some of these men a lot of good." ... except for the ones who ended up in a pine box.
2
You would have to know Marvin Wiggins he is a real piece of work. He is in love with himself, and thinks he is a little god. The picture of him and Governor Bentley is from a meeting at ASU where he is on the board of trustees. He was trying to grandstand and make the independent investigation and audit into corruption and fraud charges against him and other board trustees into a racial issue. That's the kind of a person he is.
6
This horrifying, deeply depressing article does not place nearly enough stress on the fact that most of the fees that these indigent Alabamans owe are in the first place illegitimate. The reporter should re-interview Messrs Crocker and Green about the precise sources of their "debts" to the court.
8
harge and arrest the judge, his behavior is beyond criminal, it is evil.
4
This "judge" is a disgrace to justice. What's next for him - a kidney to escape a felony?
4
Unconstitutional and horrifying.
3
Coercive fun and regressive mindgames in the deep South again. Some things never change in the most "exceptional nation on earth."
Truly one of the dumbst ideas I ever heard. Do you want any old blood running around in the public blood bank? All it takes is one miss and you've got what the other guy was hiding. Want to first in line to take some of this blood? The blood bank carefully controls the quality for a really good reason!
Truly one of the dumbst ideas I ever heard. Do you want any old blood running around in the public blood bank? All it takes is one miss and you've got what the other guy was hiding. Want to first in line to take some of this blood? The blood bank carefully controls the quality for a really good reason!
4
Grotesque in the extreme. I don't think such a revolting choice is presented to defendants anywhere even in Dickens, and it boggles the mind that this could be lawful today. A Daniel is most definitely not come to judgement.
2
To paraphrase that old saying; " a pint's a pound (of flesh) the world around"
5
After so much criticism of this law, you should just let the accused decide.
4
Hepatitis killed my mother. She almost certainly contracted it from a contaminated transfusion. Paid and forced transfusions are a bad idea that will only create more suffering for people who become the victims of people who shouldn't be donating blood. There are rights here that are more important than those of the "donors."
51
People entering into a blood donation center, mobile or stationary, are tested for the 3 forms of Hepititis, HIV, and other diseases antigens before they are allowed to donate.
Which of course don't work if you have been recently infected.
Seem like an innovative way for people to do something positive for society, instead of wasting taxpayers money and their own lives by waiting in a jail cell. The judge didn't force anyone to give blood. He simply offered people who didn't have $100 an opportunity to earn it.
30
and then failed to pay them...
oh, and first, failed to make it clear that it was a choice and they could say no and go to jail...
it may be "innovative" as you say. but is deceptive and coercively so.
oh, and first, failed to make it clear that it was a choice and they could say no and go to jail...
it may be "innovative" as you say. but is deceptive and coercively so.
51
So what discount should be offered for a kidney then? Or a lung? I'd prefer to see issues with fines solved in ways that don't involve selling a body part.
59
Would you like to get a transfusion of blood that came from a convicted drug dealer?
7
Peculiar. As a physician, if I were to insist that my patient undergo a medical without their explicit consent, I'd be charged with assault and battery!
179
I have to wonder if Judge Wiggins understood full well the controversy here, and did this to draw sharper attention to the ugly practice of using criminal prosecutions of weaker members of our society to gin up day-to-day revenue for local governments.
Heather Collins
Heather Collins
16
Before we place the whole burden of this "forward- thinking" concept, look at the photo: The Honorable Judge is seated next to The Honorable Governor of Alabama which begs the question; "What was HE thinking"? I am certain the Governor rubber-stamped this innovative plan. This merely proves that when government wants to do something-it will, irrespective of legalities, practicalities or any other consideration.
1
Nahh, I think this judge is power hungry.
1
I remember a story on NPR about a court here in West Michigan that was jailing poor people who'd come before it for relatively minor offences yet they couldn't pay their penalty. Though debtor's jails are not permissible, the Supreme Court in a 1983 ruling, allowed for judges to interpret what it means for a defendant to "willfully" not pay a fee the judge determines he can afford. This has resulted in many cases of people being jailed at the whim of capricious judges.
21
Donated blood is tested later, but recent exposures to disease may not show up, and no test exists for malaria. That's why a truthful medical history is essential. Blood-borne diseases include HIV, hepatitis, malaria, syphilis, TB, gonorrhea and untreated bacterial infections.
Even if you don't see the ethical problem with coerced blood donation, it's a really terrible idea for health reasons.
Even if you don't see the ethical problem with coerced blood donation, it's a really terrible idea for health reasons.
104
Truly a draconian form of ‘justice’ both literally and figuratively. Marvin Wiggins, a jurist who could use a dose of his own bloodletting, should serve as a warning that there will always barbarians at the gates.
16
A pound of that same merchant's flesh is thine:
The court awards it, and the law doth give it.
The court awards it, and the law doth give it.
1
Over 1,000 people a month are incarcerated in Alabama because they can't pay their probation fine. This is an alternative to get people out of prison in that state. No perfect but it beats doing time.
8
Ten lashes may also beat doing time, but it's archaic and we condemn it when we watch people get brutally beaten in countries we consider backward. For the United Staes to be coercive about taking blood from a person's body is equally horrific, or even more so.
65
In a country that supposedly does not have debtor's prisons, it is appalling that people are being imprisoned for not being able to pay fines.
3
People should not be incarcerated in the United States because they can't pay their probation fines.
6
I think they should investigate this entire court. Then, they should examine this and other judges mind-sets for how they view criminal defendants. You can do this to people only if you think they're sub-humans.
41
I do not agree with the judge's actions for a variety of legal and practical reasons, most already addressed in the article. However, I find it curious that there is such a visceral reaction to this judge's actions, yet jailing individuals for an inability to pay fines is widely accepted pracrice.
Jailing defendants who can't pay fines often puts those defendants in a downward spiral and prevent those who have a willingness the opportunity to rebuild their lives. The stint in jail usual causes the defendants to lose teir jobs, lose custody of their kids, and generally put them back on square one.
In contrast, blood donation is a brief inconvenience that lasts a few minutes. Some folks have greater degrees of discomfort about it, but unless you are deeply phobic it's a lot less miserable than time behind bars.
Again, I do not agree with the judge's actions. However, I find American view of what constitutes humane punishment a bit bizarre. Incarceration seems to find unquestioned acceptance as humane.
Jailing defendants who can't pay fines often puts those defendants in a downward spiral and prevent those who have a willingness the opportunity to rebuild their lives. The stint in jail usual causes the defendants to lose teir jobs, lose custody of their kids, and generally put them back on square one.
In contrast, blood donation is a brief inconvenience that lasts a few minutes. Some folks have greater degrees of discomfort about it, but unless you are deeply phobic it's a lot less miserable than time behind bars.
Again, I do not agree with the judge's actions. However, I find American view of what constitutes humane punishment a bit bizarre. Incarceration seems to find unquestioned acceptance as humane.
80
The issue isn't the defendants' rights. It is more the rights of those that would be receiving the blood. Would they be at a greater risk for hepatitis, HIV etc, since the giver used it not to benefit the community but to get out of the court imposed fine, thereby increasing the risk of tainted blood?
8
@Tom Kyte
You may not think defendant's right is an issue, but clearly many people disagree based on the comments to this article as well as the various professionals quoted in this article.
Read the quotes and the comments. A lot of people have a problem not just because of the usual problems of economic incentives for giving blood.
You may not think defendant's right is an issue, but clearly many people disagree based on the comments to this article as well as the various professionals quoted in this article.
Read the quotes and the comments. A lot of people have a problem not just because of the usual problems of economic incentives for giving blood.
8
How is the intent or reason for giving blood related to the quality of the bood? aren't all blood donations given some screening protocol before given to a patient? If a covicted criminal's blood does not have HIV or some other pathogen that would somehow make it unacceptable for human use, is there some other compelling reason you would not want it trasfused with you?
Strange concept eh? What might you get from a criminal's blood? Might you becme a criminal???
Strange concept eh? What might you get from a criminal's blood? Might you becme a criminal???
Involuntary donation = infected blood, this judge is clueless.
22
As the judge likely committed a crime by his actions, perhaps he might want to donate a kidney to pay back his debt to society.
79
Maybe these folks in the so-called Bible Belt should actually read the book. This doesn't correspond with any story of Jesus I've ever read.
24
They may be offenders, but they are not cattle. There are numerous circumstances which force a person to commit an offense. The court should ponder over the merits of the case and sentence a defendant, strictly in accordance with law alone.
The learned Judge is certainly exceeding his limits by forcing defendants to give blood. Donating blood is one thing and forceful extraction is another. It reminds me of extreme punishments meted out to defendants in China.
Instead of forcing the defendants to give blood, they could be made to do community service for certain periods. If the learned Judge is of the view that blood donating is a noble deed, he should impress upon people about the need to donate blood and how it could save lives. Of course, even this could be done only outside court campus.
The learned Judge is certainly exceeding his limits by forcing defendants to give blood. Donating blood is one thing and forceful extraction is another. It reminds me of extreme punishments meted out to defendants in China.
Instead of forcing the defendants to give blood, they could be made to do community service for certain periods. If the learned Judge is of the view that blood donating is a noble deed, he should impress upon people about the need to donate blood and how it could save lives. Of course, even this could be done only outside court campus.
44
This is the sickest thing I heard of in my country for a long time. Another example of extreme hard core persecution of the poor for being poor.
My first thought after reading this was if these deranged Judges can do as they please then why stop at blood. If they crave that pound of flesh and really want to inflict some serious harm on the poor why not harvest other body parts like an eye or a kidney, or if you owe a lot of money you could give them an arm too.
It's scary that there are parts of the south that are still living in 18th century. And the simple answer is "Educate Your Young".
My first thought after reading this was if these deranged Judges can do as they please then why stop at blood. If they crave that pound of flesh and really want to inflict some serious harm on the poor why not harvest other body parts like an eye or a kidney, or if you owe a lot of money you could give them an arm too.
It's scary that there are parts of the south that are still living in 18th century. And the simple answer is "Educate Your Young".
166
Given the police and judicial practices in Ferguson Mo. and other locations, where a population of poor people is targeted to provide revenue, one can imagine towns where one could acquire a variety of organs from the poor. How truly deranged, that anyone can justify this practice. America has become depraved. The Justice Department had better act to arrest this judge and anyone like him and establish a precedent for decency.
1
Someone should look at the history of the Anderson City Court in Anderson, IN.
6
Selling body parts for money is illegal. Why is this any different? The exchange of blood for money, a body part, is no different than selling a body part.
19
Possibly because blood replenishes itself, it's not really comparable to parting with a cornea or a kidney.
6
I thought debtors prisons were outlawed? The judge needs to lose his job and then be compelled to give blood!
51
I wonder how many of the commentators here have given blood.
I think this is a wonderful idea. We have a chronic shortage of blood products in this country and all of us could stand to donate more. They do not bleed you dry when you donate - it is a small amount.
And people do not pass out from lack of blood - they pass out in response to the needle.
Had this judge mandated kidney donation or some other irreplaceable part, then by all means some of this vitriol would be justified. But blood is not that.
How can the times continue to push the narrative that too many are locked up but condemn a plan that so clearly breaks the debtor prison model?
I think this is a wonderful idea. We have a chronic shortage of blood products in this country and all of us could stand to donate more. They do not bleed you dry when you donate - it is a small amount.
And people do not pass out from lack of blood - they pass out in response to the needle.
Had this judge mandated kidney donation or some other irreplaceable part, then by all means some of this vitriol would be justified. But blood is not that.
How can the times continue to push the narrative that too many are locked up but condemn a plan that so clearly breaks the debtor prison model?
9
Telling people they pass out in response to the needle is wrong. If it was correct then I would pass out or have an issue with ANY needle and I don't. I have absolutely NO issue with my nightly insulin shots and I have had many surgeries where they put needles in my arm for the IV and I have a couple tattoos - no issues. It's ONLY when they take blood. And there is more to this than what you are thinking - look at the bigger picture. This judge has NO clue what diseases or health problems these people have. And someone who is poor and cannot afford to go to jail may put their life in jeopardy simply because they aren't given another choice but jail. That isn't right. Besides that, not knowing what all of these people might be carrying disease-wise could definitely pose a public health hazard. If they are HIV positive or have Hepatitis and the people drawing blood are not aware it places their lives in jeopardy. Plus the cost associated with drawing blood from how many people and how much of that is not viable? If they want to do this then give them the $100 credit offer but don't tell them it's either give blood or jail. That's not the right thing to do. At least give the people who CAN'T donate blood another choice other than jail.
12
Like another commenter said, INVOLUNTARY BLOOD = RISKY BLOOD. Would you be willing to receive such blood?
15
I donate blood regularly, and previously worked for an organization that runs blood drives, recruiting donors. It is considered unethical to offer anything of value in exchange for a donation of blood--small trinkets, branded items (shirts/pens/stress balls with the org's logo), snacks are fine, but money or anything valuable is not. This is because most reputable hospitals won't accept blood from people who have been compensated, because people may lie about medical conditions, etc. in order to donate. As you can see in this case, most of the donated blood was discarded--a waste of everyone's time, a cause of unnecessary pain to the donors, and a poor use of the blood center's resources. This drive did nothing to alleviate the blood shortage, and likely turned many of these coerced donors against the idea of donating again on their free time. This is a disgrace.
74
This is a debtor's prison program. I believe the Founders wanted to do away with this practice, even if they couldn't get it right on slavery.
29
What if the blood was useable?
Would that be such a bad thing? - it would be contributing towards the public health in a way we are all encouraged to do.
So easy to offend the delicate sensibilities of NY Times' readers.
Would that be such a bad thing? - it would be contributing towards the public health in a way we are all encouraged to do.
So easy to offend the delicate sensibilities of NY Times' readers.
3
Because testing of donated blood is not a 100% accurate process (and there are no tests outside of experimental ones for CJD). The system relies on risk screening to help ensure the safety of the blood supply. Donors are asked screening questions to ensure they meet the criteria to donate and are expected to answer honestly. As soon as people are pressured to "donate" blood, which is what happens when a judge threatens you with handcuffs, there's an incentive for people to lie. This can impact the safety of the blood supply.
19
While I can understand this being unethical from a medical point of view, I am struck by the general positive feelings I have regarding individuals performing some type of community service in lieu of jail time or in lieu of a fine. Is giving blood in lieu of a fine or jail time not a community service? I believe Alabama deserves not condemnation but praise for this form of alternative "punishment."
9
Blood and plasma have high value. Priced accordingly at the source, a lot of eligible offenders would choose to pay in this manner. Of course there would be court fights and ARC blowback. I say, let's get started.
Rev. Bridges, if petty crime offenders serve a public service by literally giving blood, how about the idea that people who earn over $5 million per year be required to do so as well? After all, this is our land of opportunity so shouldn't those who benefit from it be required to give back? We could trade them a tax break. I think it would be unethical but was wondering what your feeling might be.
6
No. Giving blood under THREAT of jail is not the same as being told "you graffitied up the wall, so your community service is to paint over graffiti".
Unless the crime was "stole donated blood", the punishment does not fit.
Also, it is against the blood donation company rules. And also, it's invasive, some people should NOT give blood.
Unless the crime was "stole donated blood", the punishment does not fit.
Also, it is against the blood donation company rules. And also, it's invasive, some people should NOT give blood.
10
The biggest issue here is actually not one of the choice given, but the wording of such a choice; our overall system when it comes to addressing various "crimes" and misdemeanors needs an overhaul, as does the system meant to reinforce following through via fines, incarceration, or other solutions common to the courts.
Had the judge specified that giving blood was an alternative through utilizing routine methods, the spin would have been far more favorable - if anything, technically what he did was well within the full extent of the law (as I am aware of, anyways), since any defendant could still argue other means. But to label the alternative to only those "who cannot afford"? Within that reasoning, there is an easily perceived prick on your skin about the nigh-classist discrimination. Add onto that difficulties compounding why one cannot give blood and a whole new perspective can be siphoned out of the demonstration.
In the end, I think more alternatives need to be offered, but the system needs to be overhauled. The question most seem to want to ask is how can that be done, but the truth of it is simple: just put the work into it. The longer we dwell on what needs to be changed without doing anything is like refusing to just rip a band-aid off because we know it might hurt a little.
To throw the blood away after the fact, though, is confusing. Was the entirety of what was collected unusable? Did the agency who conducted the collections do something else wrong?
Had the judge specified that giving blood was an alternative through utilizing routine methods, the spin would have been far more favorable - if anything, technically what he did was well within the full extent of the law (as I am aware of, anyways), since any defendant could still argue other means. But to label the alternative to only those "who cannot afford"? Within that reasoning, there is an easily perceived prick on your skin about the nigh-classist discrimination. Add onto that difficulties compounding why one cannot give blood and a whole new perspective can be siphoned out of the demonstration.
In the end, I think more alternatives need to be offered, but the system needs to be overhauled. The question most seem to want to ask is how can that be done, but the truth of it is simple: just put the work into it. The longer we dwell on what needs to be changed without doing anything is like refusing to just rip a band-aid off because we know it might hurt a little.
To throw the blood away after the fact, though, is confusing. Was the entirety of what was collected unusable? Did the agency who conducted the collections do something else wrong?
3
The agency who conducted the collections violated every major principle of medical ethics as well as FDA rules regarding meaningful compensation for whole blood donors, rules intended to ensure the safety of the blood supply.
10
The article says that the majority of the blood was tossed - doesn't say why but says they tried to contact the donors ... I am assuming because it was unusable. There are a lot of things you need to consider when donating blood, my mom does it and she has to take iron pills a week before and they really test that blood because if they don't and someone gets a disease they are to blame. So I think most of them probably weren't able to give blood because they had health problems or low iron or something else. The cost of all this waste was probably WAY higher than it was worth. I agree with you that it is a good idea but they need more alternatives.
3
Judge Wiggins did not want to speak with the reporter about his peculiar offerings to the indigent. Yet his choices are made in a public courthouse in which citizens may find themselves. There should be nothing off-limits about his official judgments. And when he runs for re-election, his opponent's ads have now written themselves!
15
Next they be literally charging an arm and a leg in lieu of money.
16
Good for 'em! We've got to teach these people that they can't be black and poor in America with impunity.
17
This sets up a very disturbing precedent. The judicial branch should not be in the business of making medical decisions for the accused.
153
It's done all of the time- look at all of the laws passed to make the obtaining an abortion more difficult. If being forced to give blood is so repugnant, how about being forced to give birth?
1
Neither should the legislative branch!!
1
Or women.
That goes for ANY government official or busybody commercial or religious institution.
That goes for ANY government official or busybody commercial or religious institution.
1
I think we aren't too far from the point where the people will spill a pint of some of these official's blood.
Our founders new that revolution was necessary to cleanse the roots of freedom. These are the same people who want to take your guns... the moment they find there is no cost to them squeezing you completely for money or blood, you can be sure they will. And that goes for all of them - Republican or Democrat.
Our founders new that revolution was necessary to cleanse the roots of freedom. These are the same people who want to take your guns... the moment they find there is no cost to them squeezing you completely for money or blood, you can be sure they will. And that goes for all of them - Republican or Democrat.
1
Another embarrassment from the state of Alabama. Ranked 45th in education by Education Week in January 2015, they spend inordinate amounts of time preventing people from voting by requiring IDs and then closing most of the places for people to get them. This state really stinks on far too many BIG issues.
118
Val in Brooklyn, NY
If you repay me not on such a day,
In such a place, such sum or sums as are
Express'd in the condition, let the forfeit
Be nominated for an equal pound
Of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken
In which part of your body pleaseth me.
....
I'll have my bond, speak mot against my bond,
I have sworn an oath that I will have my bond.
Shakespeare is one thing; this is quite another--outrageous barbarism!
Submitted 10-19-15@11:03 p.m. EST
If you repay me not on such a day,
In such a place, such sum or sums as are
Express'd in the condition, let the forfeit
Be nominated for an equal pound
Of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken
In which part of your body pleaseth me.
....
I'll have my bond, speak mot against my bond,
I have sworn an oath that I will have my bond.
Shakespeare is one thing; this is quite another--outrageous barbarism!
Submitted 10-19-15@11:03 p.m. EST
6
Creditors are often forced to "write off" debts from those unable to pay. This should be the practice of the court. Blood, meet Stone.
2
Incredibly offensive metaphor from this judge! Seemingly as if to say the justice system would like to bleed poor communities dry, both economically and medically.
126
I fail to see where there is an issue with this insofar as trading blood for fines.
The South does seem to have a greater issue of issuing fines that push people into poverty, but that's separate from the majority of the discussion here, which is the idea.
These folks were given one more choice than usual, which is pay or go to jail. In this case, they (should have) won and the community (should have) won. Seems like the judge was pleasantly progressive.
The South does seem to have a greater issue of issuing fines that push people into poverty, but that's separate from the majority of the discussion here, which is the idea.
These folks were given one more choice than usual, which is pay or go to jail. In this case, they (should have) won and the community (should have) won. Seems like the judge was pleasantly progressive.
17
It might be lucrative for the court system if people were given the option to sell an organ to pay for their fines. Blood today, kidneys tomorrow!
Here's another idea: Reverse the argument of Portia in "The Merchant of Venice" and say that a pint of blood may be taken, but no jot of flesh can be touched in the process. To paraphrase the Bard, the words expressly are a pint of blood, but if in the taking of the blood, the flesh is touched, the State of Alabama has to forfeit all the fines it wishes to collect and expunge all the crimes and misdemeanors.
7
I find the suggestion that offenders give blood inhumane. It makes me think of "a pound of flesh".
35
This is unconstitutional, unsafe, and unwise. Many cannot give. The elderly and unwell, or those with certain histories, cannot become donors.
Others cannot receive.
And testing the blood is essential, in any case.
No donor can give safely without passing a proper physical - for the donor's well being - and for the safety of the blood bank.
Prisoners often become donors. With proper supervision this is safe.
The PCR in situ test is essential to eliminate threat of HIV or HPV... among others.
This judge may want to offer the option to help an offender pay a fine. Health authorities must govern the process.
Others cannot receive.
And testing the blood is essential, in any case.
No donor can give safely without passing a proper physical - for the donor's well being - and for the safety of the blood bank.
Prisoners often become donors. With proper supervision this is safe.
The PCR in situ test is essential to eliminate threat of HIV or HPV... among others.
This judge may want to offer the option to help an offender pay a fine. Health authorities must govern the process.
33
You do realize that the tested the blood right...
A pint of blood? Heck, let's extract more from these hapless offenders--a pound of flesh!
11
The American south is a great contributing factor towards my feelings of embarrassment in front of friends and colleagues from other countries.
And it's this type of self-righteous blowhard judge -- a personality type that is fairly common in the legal profession generally and judges in particular -- that induced me to decide against entering the legal profession.
And it's this type of self-righteous blowhard judge -- a personality type that is fairly common in the legal profession generally and judges in particular -- that induced me to decide against entering the legal profession.
47
Always thought the system was out for blood. But, seriously, what happens to someone who's medically disqualified from donation? Jail?
There's more than a hint of Charles Dickens's time in the way things are going now. What with the police state tactics, endemic corruption, and ridiculous penalties imposed for tiny violations, along with spying on citizens online and the REAL 'permanent record the internet that never forgets the tiniest mistake, even a failed pop quiz in school - Freedom House really ought to downgrade this county to 'Partly Free'. Like Mexico. We're getting more to be like that every day. It would be a huge embarrassment to our so-called leaders, but they've worked hard to earn it and they should jolly well have it.
There's more than a hint of Charles Dickens's time in the way things are going now. What with the police state tactics, endemic corruption, and ridiculous penalties imposed for tiny violations, along with spying on citizens online and the REAL 'permanent record the internet that never forgets the tiniest mistake, even a failed pop quiz in school - Freedom House really ought to downgrade this county to 'Partly Free'. Like Mexico. We're getting more to be like that every day. It would be a huge embarrassment to our so-called leaders, but they've worked hard to earn it and they should jolly well have it.
19
Larry Nivens wrote a series of science fiction stories in which people condemned to death were made involuntary blood and organ donors - in essence, broken down for spare parts. Judge Wiggins has taken a step toward making that dystopian vision a reality.
What's next - involuntary kidney donations?
What's next - involuntary kidney donations?
249
China was/is doing so, harvesting organs from executed prisoners.... What a nightmare, only it's too real.
16
China has done it and may still be.
1
Don't they do that in China--donate the organs of executed prisoners?
What if you shouldn't give blood because you're HIV+ or have been exposed to tuberculosis? Should you lie and put others at risk? Will the judge send you to jail since you're incapable of performing this alternative sentence?
137
The blood is tested for HIV and if you are bacteremic from Tb you will not be in any condition to donate.
This was why the blood was discarded. Even though all blood is tested, the tests aren't perfect.
3
After all that, LifeSouth discarded the blood?? Why?
4
Read the article all the way through.
9
Alabama is still Alabama. Everyone should Google the story broadcast on CBS Sunday morning on October 18 about a Rodeo in the notorious Alabama prison known as Angola in which prisoners "volunteer" to participate even though they seem to have no experience with these animals. One older prisoner said he participated because he needed the money to hire a private investigator. Why would a prisoner want to hire a private investigator? Guess. But the reporter did not ask that question. The public shows up to watch this spectacle and the report claims the event raises $4 million, money for "programs" in the prison that otherwise taxpayers would have to pay for. Who needs the Roman Coliseum when you have Alabama's Angola prison?
127
The Angola prison is located in Louisiana, not Alabama.
5
Thank you, Mary. I stand corrected. I should have fact-checked myself!
2
The Angola penitentiary is in Louisiana, not Alabama.
There's actually a great book about Angola called "God of the Rodeo" by Daniel Bergner. The rodeo there certainly raises a lot of ethical questions, but it's not nearly so simple or one-sided as you seem to think. The warden is genuinely and passionately committed to changing these men's lives. Not everyone agrees with his approach, but this book discusses a lot of difficult issues related to incarceration and redemption.
I am a liberal, too--by the way. I am disturbed and angered by this Alabama judge's sentencing with forced blood donations. But there's a lot more to the Angola story than you express here. If you care about these issues, I would urge you to read this excellent book.
There's actually a great book about Angola called "God of the Rodeo" by Daniel Bergner. The rodeo there certainly raises a lot of ethical questions, but it's not nearly so simple or one-sided as you seem to think. The warden is genuinely and passionately committed to changing these men's lives. Not everyone agrees with his approach, but this book discusses a lot of difficult issues related to incarceration and redemption.
I am a liberal, too--by the way. I am disturbed and angered by this Alabama judge's sentencing with forced blood donations. But there's a lot more to the Angola story than you express here. If you care about these issues, I would urge you to read this excellent book.
4
NOT good idea. As the article states, compensation-based blood donation was reduced because of the transmission of infectious diseases. I can't give blood because I was in the UK during BSE (Mad Cow Disease).
16
Perhaps more revenue can be gained with "donated" kidneys and livers, and for really awful crimes, hands and eyes.
25
Judge Wiggins should be forced from the bench because he clearly doesn't understand or support the US Constitution. Forcing indigent people to pay fines through forcing them to give blood is not how our criminal justice system operations. It is embarrassing and disgusting.
And, Alabama, oh, Alabama, when will states such as you learn that fining the very poor for petty crimes doesn't save you money? Doesn't deter petty crime? It only serves to clog courtrooms and send people back to jail for short periods of time - all on the tax payer's dime.
And, Alabama, oh, Alabama, when will states such as you learn that fining the very poor for petty crimes doesn't save you money? Doesn't deter petty crime? It only serves to clog courtrooms and send people back to jail for short periods of time - all on the tax payer's dime.
89
I intend to increase my annual donation to the Southern Poverty Law Center. This kind of thing makes me sick. And to compound the felony, the judge is black. Cruel world.
107
Indeed. I increased my monthly allotment to SPLC less than a week ago, mainly due to alarming events that are occurring in Alabama.
13
Miniature "Ferguson(s)" all over the nation: This is truly frightening.The need to "make money" to finance a town's budget by any-means-necessary [except raising taxes] cannot be legal or ethical. How do we get to a place where this type of behavior is condoned without an iota of legal vetting in modern 21st Century America? I do not want to allow my imagination to conjure up other Money-Schemes that take place in other rural communities throughout this nation; Frightening.
15
This is sick. Figures it's in the South
16
There is little to say about Alabama save that I have no doubt that they are shining example about what some academics like to call "Souther Civilization."
Thousands of dollars in fines for two marijuana busts? The poor and helpless pay for what the rich don't want to. I'd like to think that someone will give Judge Wiggins a good talking to, aside from "Good job!"
Thousands of dollars in fines for two marijuana busts? The poor and helpless pay for what the rich don't want to. I'd like to think that someone will give Judge Wiggins a good talking to, aside from "Good job!"
9
He needs more than a "good talking to." He should be removed from the bench.
22
Great, just great. Now you can get pulled over and the government can literally drain the blood from your body. Think they won't sell your DNA to some pharma? Guess again, it was probably their idea.
Alabama just moved up on my list of states to avoid to #1.
Alabama just moved up on my list of states to avoid to #1.
64
This is beyond disgusting and clearly an unconstitutional abuse of power. Judge Wiggins' needs to be removed from the bench forthwith, by impeachment if needed.
30
So, not only is it coercive and possibly illegal, the blood is unusable.
Sounds like this judge just gets a kick out of toying with people.
Sounds like this judge just gets a kick out of toying with people.
17
What about the pound of flesh?
11
“You’re basically sentencing someone to an invasive procedure that doesn’t benefit them and isn’t protecting the public health.”
Kind of like forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy, only a pregnancy is a lot more invasive and potentially harmful.
A pint of blood can save a life too- a life that is already born. It costs the donor nothing, takes less than an hour and almost never results in death. If you're outraged at this, you don't have the right to complain about women having abortions.
Kind of like forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy, only a pregnancy is a lot more invasive and potentially harmful.
A pint of blood can save a life too- a life that is already born. It costs the donor nothing, takes less than an hour and almost never results in death. If you're outraged at this, you don't have the right to complain about women having abortions.
10
how about doing one better, making them donate a kidney? Your reasoning is so ridiculous.
8
Did you skip parts of the article? A man fainted after giving blood. I have a friend with anemia. She shouldn't give blood; she might not die, but she might come close to it. Pregnant women shouldn't give blood; how many women who don't know they're pregnant (in the first month or two) were appearing before Judge Wiggins?
17
Hmmmm don't give Alabama any ideas. Next they will force women prisoners to perform as surrogates with proceeds going to the prison system. Slavery has not ended.
12
It is more than ironic that this blatant violation of the constitution is being carried out by a black judge, and i imagine that many of those who he "directed' to the blood drive were also poor people of color. I have no idea what purpose the judge thought he was achieving. If it was a sentence to community service, then issue the sentence on the record with participating in a blood drive simply being one of several options, if it indeed qualified as community service. But to require this one particular service in lieu of jail time is terribly close to subjecting defendants to 'medical' procedures that are not as neutral as blood drives.
Did the judge know or even consider the medical condition of those he directed? What if a defendant had anemia, an infection, or even HIV and either failed to disclose it or lied about it because if they were turned away that 'jail time' awaited them back in the courtroom. This practice is one of many examples of how we have converted our criminal justice system into a new version of the very peonage cases that came out of Alabama in the 1880's. And they too were ruled unconstitutional.
Did the judge know or even consider the medical condition of those he directed? What if a defendant had anemia, an infection, or even HIV and either failed to disclose it or lied about it because if they were turned away that 'jail time' awaited them back in the courtroom. This practice is one of many examples of how we have converted our criminal justice system into a new version of the very peonage cases that came out of Alabama in the 1880's. And they too were ruled unconstitutional.
236
why exactly is it more than ironic?
Because blacks were not treated as "All men" under the constitution?
This state has become a wasteland of incompetence and callous attitude toward the poor.
176
from the Magna Carta 1225-
"(14) A free man shall not be amerced for a trivial offence except in accordance with the degree of the offence and for a grave offence in accordance with its gravity, yet saving his way of living; and a merchant in the same way, saving his stock-in-trade; and a villein other than one of our own shall be amerced in the same way, saving his means of livelihood; if he has fallen into our mercy: and none of the aforesaid amercements shall be imposed except by the oath of good and law-worthy men of the neighbourhood. "
"(14) A free man shall not be amerced for a trivial offence except in accordance with the degree of the offence and for a grave offence in accordance with its gravity, yet saving his way of living; and a merchant in the same way, saving his stock-in-trade; and a villein other than one of our own shall be amerced in the same way, saving his means of livelihood; if he has fallen into our mercy: and none of the aforesaid amercements shall be imposed except by the oath of good and law-worthy men of the neighbourhood. "
5
Donating blood in lieu of payment seems reasonable to me.
2
probably illegal. The state can't force someone to either pay a fine or donate blood.. next they'll be demanding a kidney for reduced sentences.
9
Did you read the entire article? Donating blood for compensation makes the blood unusable -- hospitals won't take it, and almost all of the blood collected because of this judge was discarded.
8
I think if you are found guilty of a petty crime and can't afford the fine then giving a pint of blood sounds like a good idea especially if you really want to help make the community a little better be cause the government uses blood to help the wounded recover peacefully from their injuries. I wonder if this idea will lead to mandatory blood donations from misdemeanors and felons if it already doesn't?
8
Their blood was thrown in the trash can.
11
Giving blood is usually a harmless gift you provide to an anonymous person in need. Pay $100 in traffic tickets, or perform a civic good deed that costs me nothing? I couldn't think of an easier choice.
18
It's not a gift. It's coercion. That is harmful to civil liberties and the anonymous person in need. Or could have been -- the blood had to be thrown out. You missed part of the article; please read again.
28
Are you kidding? I seriously hope so.
9
The blood was discarded. The reason behind purely voluntary blood donation is to prevent donors from concealing disqualifying conditions. Even though all blood is checked, do you really want somebody with a blood born pathogen (Hepatitis, HIV, etc) giving blood because of the fear of going to jail? This judge's action was not appropriate.
40
This ruling edges toward Shakespearean drama. Given this, somehow Shylock's "pound of flesh" doesn't seem too extreme. We are better than this. Even Shakespeare knew that.
38