Judge Requires Teen to Attend Church

[Roark]

http://www.ksl.com/?...e&s_cid=queue-5

 

A district judge in Oklahoma has generated new controversy by sentencing a teenager to 10 years of church attendance, even though the judge admits it's not constitutional.

 

The sad part is that this kind of "justice" will probably enhance this judge's odds of getting reelected.

 

[JJ Husker]

It seems a little bizarre on the surface but, if you consider this 17 old was being charged with dui manslaughter, well I guess if somebody doesn't like the ten year church deferred sentence he can go back to court and get tossed in the big house for that long or longer. Like the judge admitted, it's not constitutional and wouldn't hold up on appeal but this kid, his attorney and parents aren't about to complain. His constitutional rights are not being infringed upon.

[husker_99]

Not only does he have to attend church be also:

 

"In deferring the sentence, the judge not only ordered Alred to a decade of church attendance, but also required him to finish high school and welding

 

Yeah this sh#t will get overturned and hopefully the judge has to step down.

[Hammerhead]

What exactly is attending church going to do to improve his character? I know plenty of church-going Christians who are as crooked as the day is long.

[AR Husker Fan]

It seems a little bizarre on the surface but, if you consider this 17 old was being charged with dui manslaughter, well I guess if somebody doesn't like the ten year church deferred sentence he can go back to court and get tossed in the big house for that long or longer. Like the judge admitted, it's not constitutional and wouldn't hold up on appeal but this kid, his attorney and parents aren't about to complain. His constitutional rights are not being infringed upon.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the issue, as it's never been presented to the Court, it is unconstitutional, and a violation of the defendant's constitutional rights.

 

In Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 587 (1992) the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise." Lower courts have repeatedly prohibited the government from requiring defendants to participate in religious programs to avoid or shorten incarceration. See, e.g., Inouye v. Kemna, 504 F.3d 705, 713–14 (9th Cir. 2007) (invalidating program that conditioned parole eligibility on participation in religious drug-treatment program); Kerr v. Farrey, 95 F.3d 472, 473 (7th Cir. 1996) (same); Warner v. Orange County Dep’t of Probation, 115 F.3d 1068, 1075–76 (2d Cir. 1997) (invalidating program that required attendance at religious alcohol-abuse meetings as condition of probation), judgment reinstated, 173 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 1999). It has been clear for decades that "[n]o person can be punished . . . for church attendance or non-attendance." Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 15–16 (1947).

 

The Lee decision, citing Committee for Public Ed. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U. S. 756, 773 (1973), re-stated the long established three-prong standard against which Establishment Clause cases are judged. For an act by the government to conform to the Establishment Clause, the act must:

 

1. Reflect a clearly secular purpose;

 

2. Have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and

 

3. Avoid excessive government entanglement with religion.

 

The sentence violates all three prongs.

 

First, it does not reflect a secular purpose. While one could argue that religious instruction may impart better morals, that is at best speculative. As the old saying goes, “Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.”

 

Second, it advances a particular religion. The court specifically required the defendant to attend a Christian church. Not a Jewish synagogue, not a Muslim mosque – a Christian church.

 

Third, it results in excessive government entanglement with religion. Let’s assume, for example, that the judge wants the defendant to be instructed in a manner that will impart better morals – a sense of right and wrong. If so, then the requirement of attending a religious program is not necessary; the court could have required the defendant to attend counseling, a victims’ right program, ethics classes, sensitivity training, and on and on.

 

Coercing the defendant to attend a church or other religious instruction or program through threat of incarceration as the alternative is a violation of the Establishment Clause, and therefore a violation of the defendant’s Constitutional rights.

[MLB 51]

This happened about 60 miles from where I live. Tulsa area I believe. This is also not the first time he has done this.

[JJ Husker]

My point was not that what the judge did was right. But, if I'm in this kids position, it would seemto be quite the lucky opportunity to avoid a real sentencing. Look at the alternatives he could have received before you go totally off the rails on this rare rightwing activist judge. In my estimatiom he did the kid a favor. There are much worse things he could spend the next ten years doing besides going to church and finishing his schooling. None of you would complain on his behalf if it were ten years in the state pen.

[AR Husker Fan]

I'll agree that the kid caught a break. But I'm not sure he did the kid a favor - he gave him one hell of a chance. Whether the kid is smart enough to take advantage - well, only time will tell.

 

My problem is with the judge. Every oath of office for every judicial position in the United States requires a pledge to uphold the Constitution of the jurisdiction and the United States. No matter how much the judge may think he's doing the right thing, he's violating that oath. He's foisting his personal religious beliefs on others - one of the acts that led to the formation of the United States and the Establishment Clause. That's reprehensible, and should never be tolorated.

[Eric the Red]

Wow....great thread

[JJ Husker]

I'll agree that the kid caught a break. But I'm not sure he did the kid a favor - he gave him one hell of a chance. Whether the kid is smart enough to take advantage - well, only time will tell.

 

My problem is with the judge. Every oath of office for every judicial position in the United States requires a pledge to uphold the Constitution of the jurisdiction and the United States. No matter how much the judge may think he's doing the right thing, he's violating that oath. He's foisting his personal religious beliefs on others - one of the acts that led to the formation of the United States and the Establishment Clause. That's reprehensible, and should never be tolorated.

 

I agree that the judge is way off base. But, I have a bit of a common sense dilemma; did he really violate this kids constitutional rights? To re-phrase it, if the kid is given the choice between this sentence or say ten years in jail, and he freely chose the church sentencing, then were his rights infringed? I sure think the judge acted unconstitutionally but I'm not sure we can say this kid was harmed by it. And if he wasn't harmed, then whose rights were infringed upon? It isn't right for sure but it does raise some interesting questions.

[husker_99]

I'll agree that the kid caught a break. But I'm not sure he did the kid a favor - he gave him one hell of a chance. Whether the kid is smart enough to take advantage - well, only time will tell.

 

My problem is with the judge. Every oath of office for every judicial position in the United States requires a pledge to uphold the Constitution of the jurisdiction and the United States. No matter how much the judge may think he's doing the right thing, he's violating that oath. He's foisting his personal religious beliefs on others - one of the acts that led to the formation of the United States and the Establishment Clause. That's reprehensible, and should never be tolorated.

 

I agree that the judge is way off base. But, I have a bit of a common sense dilemma; did he really violate this kids constitutional rights? To re-phrase it, if the kid is given the choice between this sentence or say ten years in jail, and he freely chose the church sentencing, then were his rights infringed? I sure think the judge acted unconstitutionally but I'm not sure we can say this kid was harmed by it. And if he wasn't harmed, then whose rights were infringed upon? It isn't right for sure but it does raise some interesting questions.

 

I understand where you are coming from JJhusker1 but the judge could've also just sentenced him to community service if he felt there was a better alternative than jail and if he really wanted to help the kid out. So that way the judge stays clear of this mess.

[AR Husker Fan]

I agree that the judge is way off base. But, I have a bit of a common sense dilemma; did he really violate this kids constitutional rights? To re-phrase it, if the kid is given the choice between this sentence or say ten years in jail, and he freely chose the church sentencing, then were his rights infringed? I sure think the judge acted unconstitutionally but I'm not sure we can say this kid was harmed by it. And if he wasn't harmed, then whose rights were infringed upon? It isn't right for sure but it does raise some interesting questions.

Probably the best way to explain it is that the courts have ruled that when given a choice between an unconstitutional option and incarceration, the choice isn't "free" - it's deemed to be coericive. As such, he's forced by the government to undergo religious instruction and by definition his rights are violated.

[knapplc]

I agree that the judge is way off base. But, I have a bit of a common sense dilemma; did he really violate this kids constitutional rights? To re-phrase it, if the kid is given the choice between this sentence or say ten years in jail, and he freely chose the church sentencing, then were his rights infringed? I sure think the judge acted unconstitutionally but I'm not sure we can say this kid was harmed by it. And if he wasn't harmed, then whose rights were infringed upon? It isn't right for sure but it does raise some interesting questions.

 

What if this was your kid, and the judge sentenced him to attend prayers at a mosque for ten years? Still think it's OK?

[Conga3]

I agree that the judge is way off base. But, I have a bit of a common sense dilemma; did he really violate this kids constitutional rights? To re-phrase it, if the kid is given the choice between this sentence or say ten years in jail, and he freely chose the church sentencing, then were his rights infringed? I sure think the judge acted unconstitutionally but I'm not sure we can say this kid was harmed by it. And if he wasn't harmed, then whose rights were infringed upon? It isn't right for sure but it does raise some interesting questions.

Probably the best way to explain it is that the courts have ruled that when given a choice between an unconstitutional option and incarceration, the choice isn't "free" - it's deemed to be coericive. As such, he's forced by the government to undergo religious instruction and by definition his rights are violated.

 

Would it have passed the sniff test if the judge ordered him to 10 years of participation in a weekly group with at least one option being a 'secular' option...even if it judge came up with several options that included 'church'?

 

What happens if person lives in a small town and there are plenty of 'church' options, but to participate in a secular group he'd have to travel a moderate to great distance? (often the case of small towns)

[Undone]

What if this was your kid, and the judge sentenced him to attend prayers at a mosque for ten years? Still think it's OK?

 

Actually a really poignant question, and probably reiterates the impetus for the founding fathers to implement a system whereby all of these scenarios are impossible.

 

What exactly is attending church going to do to improve his character? I know plenty of church-going Christians who are as crooked as the day is long.

 

Hammerhead, this is a heartfelt reply to your comment. I'd like to propose that it's Christians themselves that perpetuated the idea that being "good" was the point. It's not the point, and it's not the true message of the Gospel that the bible outlines. Paul called himself the "chief of sinners." That's the idea - that man's righteousness is "as a filthy rag."

 

Hypocrisy is hypocrisy. But again, just know that the idea that you have to be "good" to be a Christian is not the real message of the Gospel. It hurts my heart that mankind has twisted it to be otherwise.

 

Sorry for the off-topic comments.