For Offenders Who Can’t Pay, It’s a Pint of Blood or Jail Time

That is a sure fire way to spread evil.

If all else fails then go directly to the source.

Another court that favors those with money over those without.

That's all this boils down to. If you don't have money, give blood or go to jail.

Why is this at all acceptable to anyone?

a reply to: EternalSolace

Why is this at all acceptable to anyone?

Sadly because I am not facing court fines right now.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Since there is a lawsuit that will set the law we will find out if they find it legal or not.

Ha...well, contrary to incorrect belief, court rulings don't set law, they just interpret it, but I know that's nitpicking.

Yes, we will indeed see if it's legal or not, but at the time, there's nothing that I've seen that says it is illegal, and there was seemingly no court order to give blood (like the quote in the OP improperly compared it to), just the option to do so.

Either way, it'll be interesting. I think it was an idea rooted in compassion, myself, but I know others disagree.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Since there is a lawsuit that will set the law we will find out if they find it legal or not.

Ha...well, contrary to incorrect belief, court rulings don't set law, they just interpret it, but I know that's nitpicking.

Court rulings set precident. That's why verdicts most always refer to earlier court rulings.

Yes, we will indeed see if it's legal or not, but at the time, there's nothing that I've seen that says it is illegal, and there was seemingly no court order to give blood (like the quote in the OP improperly compared it to), just the option to do so.

It's unconstitutional as some would be denied the option. At least that is what I get out of equal protection under the law. Or judges could give white people lesser verdicts than black people for the same offense. It just isn't allowed.

Either way, it'll be interesting. I think it was an idea rooted in compassion, myself, but I know others disagree.

As the saying goes: the road to hell was paved in good intentions.........

Punishment of Crime.—Equality of protection under the law implies that in the administration of criminal justice no person shall be subject to any greater or different punishment than another in similar circumstances.

law.justia.com...

I don't think it gets any more clearer than that.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
Court rulings set precident. That's why verdicts most always refer to earlier court rulings.

Right, but precedent isn't absolute, nor is it law...it is an opinion as to how a law applies to a certain case. Precedent can always be ignored if the judge finds that the precedent lacks logic or reason in one way or another. Hell, appellate courts do that all the time if they overturn a ruling.

It's unconstitutional as some would be denied the option. At least that is what I get out of equal protection under the law. Or judges could give white people lesser verdicts than black people for the same offense. It just isn't allowed.

Like said before, there was not apparent malicious intent, and the onus does not fall on the judge to determine prior to offering blood donation in lieu of paymet/jail time if any defendant in the court room on that day is ineligible for blood donation.

Your logic would mean that house arrest can't be a form of punishment because what if a defendant is homeless? It's asinine to use the everything-in-all-walks-of-life-has-to-be-fair-for-everyone argument--that's not what the 14th Amendment is about.

As the saying goes: the road to hell was paved in good intentions.........

As the saying goes: It's the thought that counts. Regardless of what you seem to be arguing, it appears that the judge's intentions were (a) legal, and (b) something that should have been positive for many people.

It's not until the PC crowd comes in whining about fairness that things like this get dicked up. I still revert to my prior comment: What is better if you can't pay, jail time only, or a possibility to do something different to not have to go to jail. The judge could also have chosen to hand out different punishment for those willing but denied donations, like community service. Point is, the donation was optional, not mandatory. Beats mandatory jail, if you ask me.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
law.justia.com...

I don't think it gets any more clearer than that.

You're still missing the point, but that's fine. I get tired of arguing with people on here about the legal system when it is part of my daily job and has been for going on a decade.

So then tell me...why do plea deals exist? Why does one murderer get 20 years who shot someone, but another get life in prison?

Are you telling me that these occurrences are illegal?

No, they're not.

The equality part of punishments lie in the specified range of punishments allowed for a conviction of each charge...as for the severity of punishment within that range, that relies on specific, INDIVIDUAL details and circumstances of a crime. What you seem to be advocating for or interpreting your link as saying is that every punishment must be equivalent for similar circumstances--basically, mandatory sentencing.

That's not how the legal system works, and it's apparent that you don't understand it very well.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Why is this at all acceptable to anyone?

Because you haven't assessed the situation properly.

The judge actually gave those without money a different option that going to jail (which is the societal norm, sadly, for not paying some fines). Without that option--even if it couldn't be accepted by everyone--the default would be jail. At least this gave some a different out than paying up or getting locked up.

Why isn't this at all acceptable to you? Would you rather see poor people just thrown in jail without a different option?

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
law.justia.com...

I don't think it gets any more clearer than that.

You're still missing the point, but that's fine. I get tired of arguing with people on here about the legal system when it is part of my daily job and has been for going on a decade.

Appeal to authority.

So then tell me...why do plea deals exist? Why does one murderer get 20 years who shot someone, but another get life in prison?

Because that is within the specified range of punishment.

Are you telling me that these occurrences are illegal?

No, they're not.

As it's within range it is fine. Problem is that giving blood in lieu of paying or jail is not. Unless he gives this option to everyone every day.

The equality part of punishments lie in the specified range of punishments allowed for a conviction of each charge...as for the severity of punishment within that range, that relies on specific, INDIVIDUAL details and circumstances of a crime. What you seem to be advocating for or interpreting your link as saying is that every punishment must be equivalent for similar circumstances--basically, mandatory sentencing.

Is bleeding the fine away a "specified range of punishments allowed for a conviction of each charge."?

And is this option available to all all the time?

We'll find out.

That's not how the legal system works, and it's apparent that you don't understand it very well.

So then s black judge can sentence a white person harsher than a black person for the same crime?

If that is true that needs to stop and our justice system is more f'd than I thought.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

What happened to community service?

Wasn't that an option? A less controversial one at that? And one that everyone would have the choice to make?

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys
Appeal to authority.

Here's the thing--sometimes when someone is a relative authority on a certain topic and knows what they're talking about, it's okay for them to cite their job and experience and express how fruitless it is arguing with those who don't understand that which they're discussing.

I wonder which logical fallacy it is to cite a source--one which I assume you think is an authority on the subject--and then assume that the tiny little quote that you cited is the end all in the discussion...I wonder...

Problem is that giving blood in lieu of paying or jail is not. Unless he gives this option to everyone every day.

You could not be less correct...or more wrong...whichever phrasing you prefer.

A judge does not need to offer the same punishment to everyone, every day. Wherever you derived that information ought to never be used as a source again.

So then s black judge can sentence a white person harsher than a black person for the same crime?

If that is true that needs to stop and our justice system is more f'd than I thought.

And this strawman, coming from someone who felt it appropriate to call me out for a(n incorrect) logical fallacy.

What happened to community service?

Wasn't that an option? A less controversial one at that? And one that everyone would have the choice to make?

Community service takes many forms. And like I keep having to remind you--punishment is up to the judge. Generally speaking, the only type of limitation specified for a crime is a maximum, as there generally is no minimum stated in the laws. This is something you might want to ponder for a bit.

Look, if the judge is determined to have been wrong, so be it--I would disagree with that decision, but stranger decisions in the legal system have taken place, so I wouldn't be surprised.