Give Blood or go to Jail

[Racket_Man]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/for...4ur&OCID=HPDHP

A judge in Alabama is giving people in his court room a weird alternative to pay all or part of their court imposed fines if they are short the cash. Give blood and get a one-time $100 credit on their fine or go to jail.

NOW I know in the US a LOT of juristictions are cash strapped (and are outsourcing their court fee/fine collection to 3d party companies that impose heavy processing and maintenance fees) but this seems a little out of the ballpark to me.

[Kheldarson]

On the one hand, I could see this as an "in lieu of" initiative, if it were offered at the time of the issuance of the fine and without the implied "or be arrested ".

On the other, this judge went about this all wrong. Not only was he forcing the issue, it sounds like a good portion of the folks weren't even delinquent! They were on payment plans that they were consistent with! So what was his purpose here?

[Shangri-laschild]

I could understand this or similar things like this being set up as an alternative so long as it didn't change the previous setup. Like if a person had the ability to be on a payment plan before, they still do. This just gives another option if they want to knock off part of the cost. If there are times when it's an option of pay or go to jail anyway, offering another alternative is nice. It helps out those who can't pay and reduces how many people are jailed for minor fines. This judge seems to have gone about it wrong though and I don't know that something like blood donation should be the only option considering how many people can't donate for one reason or another.

[HYHYBT]

It also gives too strong an incentive to lie about whether you're eligible to donate blood.

[TheHuckster]

How about just community service? Although with a blood shortage being a life-or-death situation, I can sort of see at least part of the judge's idea, here. It's a tad... out there, though.

If they truly are on payment plans, and are not delinquent on them, there's no reason to even threaten jail time in any shape or form. A payment plan is something a creditor and debtor agree to. I've been in situations like this and in certain cases the state is even generous in the sense that your debt doesn't appear on any credit report and is kept private, unless you owe more than a few thousand dollars or breach the agreement, in which case they put a lein on your property and it does appear in public records.

[Gravekeeper]

This seems like one of those "His heart is in the right place but he left his brain on the dresser at home" type ideas.

[AccountingDrone]

ROFLMAO I would love to see someone try this with my roomie, she is currently in a guinea pig testing deal with the Anthrac vaccination currently in human test series ... she *can't* give blood for another 18 months or so ...

[wolfie]

A couple other points:

- At the end of the article, it said that some of the people who got receipts for giving blood didn't get the $100 credited toward their fines. If the judge is going to send people to do a community-service related thing in exchange for a reduction in their fine, those who follow instructions need to be given what they were promised.

- Not everyone can give blood. People who were rejected should also have been given a receipt, and been given the same credit as those whose donations were accepted. For HIPPAA reasons, the rejection receipt should simply state "We cannot accept a blood donation from this person", giving no clue as to the reason (has HIV, got a tattoo/piercing within the last year, already gave blood less than 90 days ago, etc.).

[s_stabeler]

I'd say the option to "work off" part of the fine through good causes is a good idea- HOWEVER, it should be a case of the courts offering a list of acceptable good causes ( this is primarily so you can check up that the fined person actually did it) for money off the fine- if there is a payment plan already established, then that cannot be overturned at the whim of the judge.

oh, and I actually disagree about the refused donations- the issue is that if the person knows they can't donate blood, they essentially get a free pass on paying part of their fine. ( I DO have a suggestion- if they have a temporary issue with donating blood, then they can get a receipt saying "X Can donate blood on Y date- however, they cannot donate blood at present" and the donation can be rescheduled for when they CAN donate. If it is a permanent issue, however, then you get no credit.)

[wolfie]

The "no credit for a permanent issue" would be a HIPPAA violation, since it would be revealing to someone outside the medical crew dealing with the patient that they HAD a permanent issue. Giving a few "free passes" is a small price to pay for protecting the privacy of medical records. Just because someone has committed an offense that they've been fined for is no reason to "let the cat out of the bag" regarding their medical records.

[HYHYBT]

Also, though it's rare, whether it's temporary or permanent can change. Either way, prividing such a strong incentive for people who shouldn't give blood to lie so they can do it anyway is worse than guving those who can't the same benefit as those who do.

[NecCat]

Also, though it's rare, whether it's temporary or permanent can change. Either way, prividing such a strong incentive for people who shouldn't give blood to lie so they can do it anyway is worse than guving those who can't the same benefit as those who do.

Anytime I've given blood (in Canada) there is a sealed section you fill out if you think you are eligible or not to give blood. This section is sealed from all the workers at the blood donation centre, they continue to take blood as normal, but there is no risk of your blood being used on the public.

Because all the blood donated is tested for disease no matter what personal history you give, it gives people who don't have a doctor a chance to have their blood tested without worrying about infecting others - the red cross contacts people when their blood tests positive for anything. It also allows people who feel social pressure to donate blood the opportunity to participate without having to reveal any medical reasons they cant.

Is there no similar procedure in the states for blood donation centres?

[HYHYBT]

The questionnaire is on a computer. As I understand it, you have to pass that as well as signing a form stating that you know of no reason you shouldn't donate or they won't collect your blood. You're warned also that even though the blood is tested, it's not a substitute for getting yourself tested elsewhere, nor is it foolproof, nor can they test for all conditions. There *used* to be a system where you could anonymously signal "yes, really, it's OK, use this" or "no, I'm going through the motions for whatever reason, but you shouldn't use my blood" by which way you put two sticky bar codes on the form, but they did away with that a good while ago.

[s_stabeler]

I should perhaps have clarified- the only thing the court would receive is "X person donated blood on X date"- if you are unable to donate within a month, it is as if you never tried in the first place. (this is also merely a way to get money off- it's not "give blood or go to jail", it's "give blood for $100 off your fine") if you can give blood within a month, you can simply reschedule the donation appointment.

Hence, no private health information would be disclosed.

[HYHYBT]

How does that make it NOT an incentive to lie so you can donate even if you shouldn't?