Blood donation as a sentencing substitute

We have the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.

All punishment that may be meted in criminal offenses is described in statutes, and no other punishment may be imposed.

All judges are sworn to protect and uphold the U.S. Constitution, including its 8th Amendment.

Yet, a judge in Alabama, Marvin Wiggins, ordered various offenders, from traffic tickets to criminal misdemeanors, to pay fines by donating blood - under the threat of jail time.

People complied.

It was wrong because such punishment, by an invasive procedure and donating of a part of your body in lieu of sentencing, is prohibited by the 8th Amendment.

It was wrong because it was a medical invasive procedure that was not beneficial to donors, that was used as punishment.

It was wrong because blood donations cannot be forced.

It was wrong because blood donations can be medically counter-indicated to a lot of people, and it was reported that at least one of the offenders who complied with the judge's order and donated blood fainted.

It was wrong because donated blood must be free of viruses, and not every donor is or should be accepted.

It was wrong because it was done in cooperation with a blood collection company who recently was slapped with a $4 million dollar judgment based on an HIV-contaminated blood transfusion, and there are certain risks for both the donor and the recipient of blood donation as to sterility and virus transmission.

I wonder whether the judge will be disciplined.  A disciplinary complaint was filed - but not by any attorneys who represented the offenders made to donate blood as punishment. 

In fact, an attorney who appears in that judge's court and was interviewed, was not forthcoming as to his opinion and indicated he does not really know whether the judge's actions were unethical, illegal or unconstitutional. 

Yet, if an attorney, a law expert, does not know - who does?

It is not only lack of accountability of judges that allow judges to act the way Judge Wiggins did, but the total cowardice of the legal profession that allows judicial misconduct to proceed - in various ways, across the country.