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

Nobody is being forced to give blood. They were given an extra option. Hell if I was there and HAD the money I'd give the blood and save my money. I donate anyway. I have an off blood type and never know if I'll need blood.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Options? No. A elected official has no right to tell me options what to do with my body. If i want to donate blood, kidney or what ever peice of me (and I do) that is my choice . This is just as bad as swabbing peoples mouths at road checks.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Yeah, still not seeing any negative impacts.

It's optional. It's helpful.

No impact unless one of the donors has AIDs, Hep C, ....screening procedures are often faulty and wrong, performed by unskilled workers.

I don't want a transfusion with junkie blood....! Do you?

originally posted by: hillbilly4rent
a reply to: JIMC5499

Options? No. A elected official has no right to tell me options what to do with my body. If i want to donate blood, kidney or what ever peice of me (and I do) that is my choice . This is just as bad as swabbing peoples mouths at road checks.

Apples and oranges. The Judge was NOT ordering anybody to give blood. He was giving them an OPTION to donate blood instead of paying their fine.

By the way I agree with you about swabbing mouths at road checks, but, there is a big difference between that and what this Judge was doing. At the road check you are being compelled to have your cheek swabbed and NOT given an option.

a reply to: DeathSlayer

Not real sure I am a side here. Seems like a good offer if you have no money. Always need blood. Does give meaning to the term blood money. Have to think about it a little more.

This sentencing is not acceptable or something that we should be ok with. The south has had a long history of this kind of stuff, from the chain gangs where prisoners were used as slave labor while serving sentences, to the Tuskegee experiments, where prisoners were knowingly infected with an std and used in experimentation.

And it is neither a fair sentencing or one that should be done, cause now one could argue that it discriminates against those with life long blood born diseases, like HIV or HEP C. What do those do when confronted with the same judge?

I see nothing wrong w this? Helping people while serving your penance?

Wow. This is the second thread this morning that has me agasp at the responses. S&F OP.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask
The problem with that concept is that when it is the judicial system involved, it is no longer something innocent of voluntary. The badge, the judge, and place, no legal representation there to advice the persons being sentenced, that in its self is suspect. With no lawyer there to advice the persons of their rights, it is in short, coerce by the judge to force the people to do such. And now we come to the other part that I mentioned in an earlier posting, what about those who have a blood born disease? They are not eligible for such, so is it that the healthy get a free pass, and those who are not so healthy are now forced with going to jail, or paying the fine and ultimately it fails to be an equal punishment for all.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

I wonder what would have happened if somebody said "Your Honor, I would be happy to give blood, but, I have a medical condition that does not allow me to do so."?

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: sdcigarpig

I wonder what would have happened if somebody said "Your Honor, I would be happy to give blood, but, I have a medical condition that does not allow me to do so."?

I wonder what would happen if someone who had HIV slips through and someone contracts the disease.

I hope someone (anyone) who contracts HIV after this happened sues this judge. Because you never know where the blood came from.

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: sdcigarpig

I wonder what would have happened if somebody said "Your Honor, I would be happy to give blood, but, I have a medical condition that does not allow me to do so."?

I wonder what would happen if someone who had HIV slips through and someone contracts the disease.

I hope someone (anyone) who contracts HIV after this happened sues this judge. Because you never know where the blood came from.

Don't they test for that before giving it to someone?


I don't think it was your intention but your last paragraph makes it sound like you hope someone gets HIV.

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: IslandOfMisfitToys

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: sdcigarpig

I wonder what would have happened if somebody said "Your Honor, I would be happy to give blood, but, I have a medical condition that does not allow me to do so."?

I wonder what would happen if someone who had HIV slips through and someone contracts the disease.

I hope someone (anyone) who contracts HIV after this happened sues this judge. Because you never know where the blood came from.

Don't they test for that before giving it to someone?

Is it 100%?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

WEll now thats what I was going to say because if you are on any drug or have certain diseases you cannot give blood. It is very strict for good reason.

Suspicious however this Judge seems to be a real burr in the saddle of the system as he leads the way of rebellion for the Black cause in Alabama and has done so for quite some time.

If it's optional..what's the f'n problem here??? and as I read it 3 choices qualifies as optional where I grew up.

I'm very logical.

I like practical decisions (choices).

This is great.

a reply to: thesaneone

Only a small % is actually tested randomly. This is why if you give blood are asked private questions about your lifestyle and risk factors, other than that it is on the receiving end where if you received blood you are asked if you did so and when/where... if you have a surgery scheduled, have your own drawn up at least 6 weeks prior...

a reply to: hillbilly4rent

Then take your body to jail I guess.

originally posted by: vonclod
If it's optional..what's the f'n problem here??? and as I read it 3 choices qualifies as optional where I grew up.

Because as stated for some it is NOT an option.

BTW...

Some people think that donating blood is a better way to learn their HIV status than asking their doctor for an HIV test or visiting a clinic. This is not true. You should not donate blood to find out if you are HIV-positive.

Why?  Because the HIV tests used to screen donor blood are highly accurate—but they aren't perfect.  If you have been infected with HIV recently, even the most sensitive test may not show it, and you can infect others if your blood is transfused to them.

www.aids.gov...

Still think this is such a great idea?

a reply to: DeathSlayer

So what happens if they have undiagnosed HIV, AIDS, Hepatitis or some other disorder that can be passed via blood? And dont tell me "They" will test it all, because they wont.