Teen Sentenced to 10 Years of Church Attendance As Condition of Parole: Fair or Foul?
SodaHead News
2012/12/10 01:21:08
|
|
|||||
|
259 votes
|
|
35% | |||
|
474 votes
|
|
65% | |||
Last month, an Oklahoma judge sentenced 17-year-old Tyler Alred to 10 years of church attendance as a condition of his parole. And now the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is crying foul.
In August, Alred pleaded guilty to manslaughter charges for an alcohol-related car crash that killed his 16-year-old passenger John Luke Dum on December 3, 2011. Alred tested below the legal alcohol limit at the time of the crash, but was still considered to be driving under the influence because he was underage.
Instead of sentencing Alred to jail time, District Judge Mike Norman offered the “youthful offender” the alternative of 10 years probation. During his probation, Alred must “attend church regularly, wear an alcohol-monitoring ankle bracelet, participate in drug and alcohol assessments, finish school, undergo counseling and contribute to speaking events warning against drunk driving, NBC News noted.”
Alred and his defense attorney do not plan to fight the ruling. Apparently, Alred goes to church every Sunday and he far prefers the probation alternative to a jail sentence. However, the ACLU of Oklahoma has taken issue with the ruling and has filed a complaint against the judge.
“It is shocking that a judge would so blatantly ignore the First Amendment, which at minimum prevents the government from forcing church attendance and from interfering in deeply personal matters of faith,” Ryan Kiesel, the executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma, said in statement.
Judge Norman admits that his ruling may be unconstitutional, but he plans to stand by it. “They may well be right, but that’s what I did, and we made a record,” he said to the Oklahoman.
What do you think SodaHeads? Was the sentence of church attendance fair or foul?
In August, Alred pleaded guilty to manslaughter charges for an alcohol-related car crash that killed his 16-year-old passenger John Luke Dum on December 3, 2011. Alred tested below the legal alcohol limit at the time of the crash, but was still considered to be driving under the influence because he was underage.
Instead of sentencing Alred to jail time, District Judge Mike Norman offered the “youthful offender” the alternative of 10 years probation. During his probation, Alred must “attend church regularly, wear an alcohol-monitoring ankle bracelet, participate in drug and alcohol assessments, finish school, undergo counseling and contribute to speaking events warning against drunk driving, NBC News noted.”
Alred and his defense attorney do not plan to fight the ruling. Apparently, Alred goes to church every Sunday and he far prefers the probation alternative to a jail sentence. However, the ACLU of Oklahoma has taken issue with the ruling and has filed a complaint against the judge.
“It is shocking that a judge would so blatantly ignore the First Amendment, which at minimum prevents the government from forcing church attendance and from interfering in deeply personal matters of faith,” Ryan Kiesel, the executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma, said in statement.
Judge Norman admits that his ruling may be unconstitutional, but he plans to stand by it. “They may well be right, but that’s what I did, and we made a record,” he said to the Oklahoman.
What do you think SodaHeads? Was the sentence of church attendance fair or foul?
Read More: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/09/aclu-files-com...
Top Opinion
-
lucythetooth 2012/12/10 02:33:44Foul
+20A person shouldn't be forced into attending church, least of all by a judge that should not be bringing religion into the courtroom.
Whatever. He could preach all he wants, go to church till he dies, and nothing will right the wrong he did to Dum's family. I think he got off too easy.
14 But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
Amen!
Unless of course you are basing it on solely the literal views of Christ him self and only Christ himself, then I could be more inclined say most of his actions were indeed benevolent. Yet still there is room for personal interpretation in the end leaving it up to the reader to decide what defines a christian -there is no standard.There are Christians make mistakes like the rest of society they are after all people not saints. God would be the only one who could say who is more christian or pure then another.
As for the force vs not force, granted you are correct it was not a hugely forced issue but it still is against the constitution to scent a person to a religious facility, and it should not be allowed in court. Any child would choose church over prison, the fact the church was the option poses the problem here. What if he wasn't partial to the creed and had the same option?
The problem is that a religion is an option where someone else may be given the same option and be forced into a creed they don't agree with to avoid a prison terms...
Unless of course you are basing it on solely the literal views of Christ him self and only Christ himself, then I could be more inclined say most of his actions were indeed benevolent. Yet still there is room for personal interpretation in the end leaving it up to the reader to decide what defines a christian -there is no standard.There are Christians make mistakes like the rest of society they are after all people not saints. God would be the only one who could say who is more christian or pure then another.
As for the force vs not force, granted you are correct it was not a hugely forced issue but it still is against the constitution to scent a person to a religious facility, and it should not be allowed in court. Any child would choose church over prison, the fact the church was the option poses the problem here. What if he wasn't partial to the creed and had the same option?
The problem is that a religion is an option where someone else may be given the same option and be forced into a creed they don't agree with to avoid a prison terms. It shouldn't be an option at all, regardless of which religion fills it's place. There are plenty of equal punishments that don't need to involve anyone's beliefs or lack of, in the sentencing.
Added:
And after reading it again it seem that there was no offer for jail time, it was simple an alternative to jail time, I don't see anywhere where it was stated that there was a option to choose jail time or church -it seems like the offer was simply church as apposed to the normal standards.
"Instead of sentencing Alred to jail time, District Judge Mike Norman offered the “youthful offender” the alternative of 10 years probation...Alred and his defense attorney do not plan to fight the ruling. Apparently, Alred goes to church every Sunday and he far prefers the probation alternative to a jail sentence. However, the ACLU of Oklahoma has taken issue with the ruling and has filed a complaint against the judge."
There is no mention of a ultimatum specifically, which makes sense as to why the ACLU of Oklahoma is upset on the matter.
a. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church.
d. A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
e. A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.)
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
"Try reading the U.S. Constitution"
However I still call this specific incident as being foul since he is being forced to attend church.