Should this be allowed?

[Anthony 78]

BAY MINETTE, Ala. — A civil liberties group said Friday that an Alabama town should not start an alternative sentencing program that would give non-violent offenders a new choice: Go to jail, or go to church. Starting next week, the program will allow a city judge to sentence misdemeanor offenders to work off their sentences in jail and pay a fine, or go to church every Sunday for a year. Offenders who select church can pick the place of worship but must check in weekly with the pastor and the police department. If the one-year church attendance program is completed successfully, the offender’s case will be dismissed.

 

Source: Washington Post

[Shotgun 442]

I think their time would be much better spent doing community service. Also just because people are religious and may go to church doesn't mean they won't commit crimes. Less likely? Maybe, depending on the person. But like I said, their time can be better spent doing actual good things rather than just sitting in a church. It's not like they actually have to believe what they're hearing. Sounds like a good cop-out for the criminals.

[seanbrock 1,684]

Anything that takes non violent criminals away from jail where people become violent criminals is good imo

[blotsfan 2,112]

I agree with shotgun. Community service would be better than sleeping in a church. And what if they're already religious? Then they committed a crime with no punishment.

[Tridentdawgpound 1,043]

One of the dumbest things I've heard of in a while.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

Non violent criminals go to non violent prisons. This is silly.

[oochymp 2,393]

Anything that takes non violent criminals away from jail where people become violent criminals is good imo

I agree with that, but to me this screams of separation of church and state and a violation of the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... " The only way I could see them possibly getting around the establishment clause would be the fact that first offenders can still choose to go to jail instead of church and second they let offenders choose what place of worship. As long as the choices include going to a Synagogue or a Mosque or any other place of worship (the wording in that article certainly makes me think those are not included) I think they might be able to get through the Constitutional issue, but I still think they'd have trouble convincing a federal court that this law doesn't "respect an establishment of religion." I'm with Shotgun, I think the equivalent community service hours would fit a lot better within the nation's laws, if they want to give churches some influence in rehabilitating non-violent criminals they could have some churches offer volunteer opportunities that would fulfill the community service.

Edited September 24, 2011 by oochymp

[Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014]

No it should not be allowed.

[CARDINAL 205]

I think that this should be allowed, but with a few minor amendments. First of all, this doesn't violate the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution that separates church and state, because no local, state, or the federal government is trying to establish a certain religion. I think that they should have to go to jail for a year and pay a fine to the state and restitution to the victim's family, or they should have to do community service either through a church based organization or just a regular community service organization like The Mustard Seed, or another organization like that. You can't force someone to do church volunteer work (which this proposal is basicly doing because the only other option is prison and paying a fine, and no sane person would want to go to prison), but just community service in gernal in substitution to prison time is better for society as a whole in terms of rehabilitation for the offender, and for the public purse as well.

[oochymp 2,393]

I think that this should be allowed, but with a few minor amendments. First of all, this doesn't violate the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution that separates church and state, because no local, state, or the federal government is trying to establish a certain religion. I think that they should have to go to jail for a year and pay a fine to the state and restitution to the victim's family, or they should have to do community service either through a church based organization or just a regular community service organization like The Mustard Seed, or another organization like that. You can't force someone to do church volunteer work (which this proposal is basicly doing because the only other option is prison and paying a fine, and no sane person would want to go to prison), but just community service in gernal in substitution to prison time is better for society as a whole in terms of rehabilitation for the offender, and for the public purse as well.

They're telling people they can go to jail or go to church, how is that not trying to establish religion? I suppose if you think of 'establishing a religion' in the most literal sense, no, the state is not forming a religion, but the phrase "respecting the establishment of religion" has always been read very broadly to include any measure that supports a particular religious belief, otherwise there'd be no need to remove the 10 Commandments from courthouses, but that's been ruled an improper practice under the 1st Amendment. As I said, they might be able to get away with this type of measure if they made no distinction among which religion, but even that I think is a pretty big stretch.

[RazorStar 4,025]

yeah... this just seems like a bad idea.

[CARDINAL 205]

They're telling people they can go to jail or go to church, how is that not trying to establish religion? I suppose if you think of 'establishing a religion' in the most literal sense, no, the state is not forming a religion, but the phrase "respecting the establishment of religion" has always been read very broadly to include any measure that supports a particular religious belief, otherwise there'd be no need to remove the 10 Commandments from courthouses, but that's been ruled an improper practice under the 1st Amendment. As I said, they might be able to get away with this type of measure if they made no distinction among which religion, but even that I think is a pretty big stretch.

 

After reading what you just wrote in this post, I change my mind a bit and think that your argument would probably hold up in a court of law. I actually a Supreme Court ruling in the future on this particular proposal, or just this type of proposal in theory.

[oochymp 2,393]

After reading what you just wrote in this post, I change my mind a bit and think that your argument would probably hold up in a court of law. I actually a Supreme Court ruling in the future on this particular proposal, or just this type of proposal in theory.

yeah, based on that article it looks like the ACLU will be challenging it, I'm not sure what the formalities of that will entail since it isn't your typical case where someone is convicted under a questionable law and you appeal challenging the constitutionality (I've only been in law school for a month, I'm sure I'll learn it at some point) but I imagine the ACLU can file suit against the state for it

[Thanatos 2,847]

As long as its any religious place of worship and not just a church, I don't see a problem with it.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Thanatos19

[Patriots2994 43]

Source: Washington Post

 

This is absolutely ridiculous. The government should stay as far away as it can from religion. Now lawmakers are allowing criminals to be pardoned of their crimes by attending church!? Criminals' offenses generally get progressively worse, so who's not to say the "nonviolent misdemeanor" criminal won't go out and shoot a cashier for a couple hundred dollars to feed an addiction? Criminals need to give back to the community. They did wrong by OUR laws, so they should give back to US. Community service helps out mankind, which ultimately helps out God (if you want to get technical). Church and government do not mix. I hear more arguments about the two than I do about sports. Mixing the two will not lead to anything good, and will only open the door for more things to come.

[oochymp 2,393]

As long as its any religious place of worship and not just a church, I don't see a problem with it.

the problem I see (and the reason I said I think even that policy would be a stretch) is that in the wording of the first amendment everyone is guaranteed a freedom of choice in regards to religion, and under that system a lack of religious beliefs has to be one of the options available

[WindyCitySports 407]

Sean makes a good point, but I think the lyrics of a song I like can sum it up:

 

"Hate your next door neighbor, but don't forget to say grace." - Barry McGuire, "Eve of Destruction"

 

Just because someone is religious doesn't mean that they won't commit a crime. Also, I am religious, but there's no way this doesn't violate the separation of church and state.

[Duck Fallas 209]

As long as it is a CHOICE, it doesn't really violate separation of church and state. If it were required for them to attend church and they were told to attend a specific place of worship (Mosque, Synagogue, Church or Temple) they would be in clear violation of the law.

 

I despise religion and do not think that religion keeps anyone from committing a crime, so going to a place of worship is pretty pointless.

[seanbrock 1,684]

As long as it is a CHOICE, it doesn't really violate separation of church and state. If it were required for them to attend church and they were told to attend a specific place of worship (Mosque, Synagogue, Church or Temple) they would be in clear violation of the law.

 

I despise religion and do not think that religion keeps anyone from committing a crime, so going to a place of worship is pretty pointless.

It doesn't keep everyone from committing a crime, but imo it definitely keeps some people from committing a crime. Religion isn't the only part about going to church that could make this effective. It can be as simple as being around generally good religious people or being surrounded by nothing but criminals in jail. A lot of this is who people are around. I don't think even you could deny that the moral integrity of church goers is of a higher standard than people in prison.

[Anthony 78]

Personally, I think this is horrible. We should always maintain the separation between church and state. Once religion is included in any form of government, your rights get shit on. If you need examples of countries without that separation, look no further than Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel. The list can go on and on and you'll keep finding people warring over religious influence in governments.

 

Not only that. If you're going to include church as an option for state penalties and rid ourselves of that separation, then it's time to tax the church. I'm willing to bet anything that no matter how much a religion thinks it can reform someone, or how much it feels the church option is great, tell the church it's going to be taxed for its participation in this new penalty and it will want no part of it. Saving profits for itself is greater than saving someone's soul.

[CARDINAL 205]

It doesn't keep everyone from committing a crime, but imo it definitely keeps some people from committing a crime. Religion isn't the only part about going to church that could make this effective. It can be as simple as being around generally good religious people or being surrounded by nothing but criminals in jail. A lot of this is who people are around. I don't think even you could deny that the moral integrity of church goers is of a higher standard than people in prison.

 

You actually make a very good point here Sean. I've seen prison shows before on The National Geographic channel where inamtes that are locked up in the same prison as rapists and murders JOIN gangs and other criminal organizations for protection and human contact. IMO, the best way to tackle the problem of gangs and people join them in the first place is to separate violent and non-violent inmates. This allows the prison officials and other law enforecment officials to stop the spread of gangs in prisons, and they could also separate gang members into separate prison blocks (based on gang membership), and then you can gain intel on each particular gang and try to start breaking them down until they are destroyed.

[Anthony 78]

It can be as simple as being around generally good religious people or being surrounded by nothing but criminals in jail. A lot of this is who people are around. I don't think even you could deny that the moral integrity of church goers is of a higher standard than people in prison.

 

That's assuming criminals don't go to church, which they do. Look from as low as your street gang members to as high as those that are organized and you'll see the cross worn around their necks. Many of them will attend church with their families on Sundays.

 

And you can't exclude the criminals running some churches. In a prison setting, the pedophile isn't in charge. In a church setting, he very well might be. And this isn't intended to bash to church, just to point out that though the cross itself may be a symbol of purity, it doesn't necessarily mean the members kneeling before it are.

[Thanatos 2,847]

That's assuming criminals don't go to church, which they do. Look from as low as your street gang members to as high as those that are organized and you'll see the cross worn around their necks. Many of them will attend church with their families on Sundays.

 

And you can't exclude the criminals running some churches. In a prison setting, the pedophile isn't in charge. In a church setting, he very well might be. And this isn't intended to bash to church, just to point out that though the cross itself may be a symbol of purity, it doesn't necessarily mean the members kneeling before it are.

 

Pretty sure his point was that there are, in the vast majority of cases, better people going to church than those the criminal *would be* hanging out with, were he to go to a jail.

 

Even if there are a very few people that should be in jail who are in a church, nearly everyone who is in jail, should be in jail. It's just a better community, and thus, in theory, would be a better influence on the person than a jail cell with prison inmates would be.

 

Would you disagree with that?

Edited October 8, 2011 by Thanatos19

[Anthony 78]

Pretty sure his point was that there are, in the vast majority of cases, better people going to church than those the criminal *would be* hanging out with, were he to go to a jail.

 

Even if there are a very few people that should be in jail who are in a church, nearly everyone who is in jail, should be in jail. It's just a better community, and thus, in theory, would be a better influence on the person than a jail cell with prison inmates would be.

 

Would you disagree with that?

 

What I'm saying is, without an inmate number and classification, you don't know what that person sitting next to you in the pew has done, just as you don't know what the average person passing you on the street has hidden in their closet.

 

The law they plan to enact would send non-violent misdemeanor convictions to church. As it is now, non-violent misdemeanors are not mixed in the jail population with maximum security killers, rapists, armed robbers, etc. The only time they are mixed is in a holding cell when they go to court. Your non-violent convicts are locked up with people that are in jail for not paying traffic tickets, drunks,failing to complete community service, marijuana possession, pimping, etc. It's county jail, with sentences less than a year, and not prison.

 

Do you know how many violent convicts find God in jail? They get out and go to church on Sundays. Some of them have even become ministers and opened their own churches. So to say someone going to church isn't in the presence of violent convicts isn't exactly true, unless you know each member of the congregation personally.

[Phins4life 271]

This absolutely should not be put into motion. It wouldn't just step on the toes of freedom of religion (or lack of one)...it would trample it. Community service is the better alternative to jail time.