General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSeparation of Church and State? Judge sentences teen to 10-years of church for DUI death
A judge in Oklahoma handed down an unconventional sentence of 10 years of church on Tuesday to a teenager who pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter for a DUI crash.
Tyler Alred, 17, had been charged as a youthful offender for the crash on December 3, 2011 that took the life of 16-year-old John Luke Dum of Muskogee, Oklahoma.
Dum was a passenger in the red pickup truck that Alred was driving on the night of the crash and he was ejected from the vehicle when the truck crashed. Breathalyzer tests from that fateful night showed that Alred had a blood-alcohol content of .006.
Judge Norman gave Alred a 10-year deferred sentence, which is the maximum for a juvenile.
The list of conditions Alred must comply with, or face prison time, include: graduating from high school, graduating from welding school, taking drug and alcohol assessment and submitting to drug, alcohol and nicotine tests for a year, wearing a drug and alcohol bracelet, taking part in victims impact panels and attending church for 10 years.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2234308/Judge-sentences-teen-10-years-church-DUI-death.html
Gidney N Cloyd
(19,847 posts)Laelth
(32,017 posts)And it's better than prison.
I only hope that the Judge determined whether or not the defendant was religious first. If so, this sentence doesn't bother me. If the Judge were forcing religion on a person who was not religious, I would feel differently.
-Laelth
renie408
(9,854 posts)I don't care how you slice it, that is establishing religion. Period. Whether the person is religious or not. Or agrees or not.
Yavin4
(37,182 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)so also the teen could opt to goto prison apparently he felt otherwise. you need to re-read the 1st amendment cause it doesnt appear that you know what it says.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)In England, at the time of our founding, there were courts of law (the king's courts, which were secular and handled only secular matters) and courts of equity (the church's courts, that handled supposedly religious matters--marriage, divorce, probate, succession, and crimes against God or the church). We inherited this system, and despite our preference for separation of church and state, we still divide courts into courts of law (which handle matters that were traditionally handled by the king's courts) and courts of equity (which handle everything else). Any court of equity has "broad equitable power" to fashion a remedy (a legal order) that is "equitable" (i.e. fair), including making people go to church; making people attend A.A. meetings; ordering the recount every single ballot in Florida, or all the ballots in a few, select counties in Florida; making people wear embarrassing signs while standing out in front of the court house; you name it.
Personally, I get a little concerned when judges sitting in courts of law do these sorts of things. Traditionally, judges in courts of law could not do this, but judges in courts of equity can order just about anything that they think is fair.
Please note that the states' adoption of the English common law predates the Constitution of the United States, and all of the states, except Louisiana, which still operates under Code Napoleon, embrace and enforce English common law to this day--except to the extent that the common law has been "abrogated," i.e. changed, by statute or later case law. The Constitution of the United States did not, nor was it intended to, abrogate English common law.
-Laelth
bowens43
(16,064 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)He was also a regular church attendee prior to the sentencing. I don't think there is any separation issue here.
renie408
(9,854 posts)Wrong answer!!
I don't give a shit if the kid is the second coming of Christ, a JUDGE cannot order CHURCH as part of any kind of reparation. Not a judge in the United States of America.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)You may want to read more about this case.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)vaberella
(24,634 posts)I personally have a big problem with church and think I'd rather go to prison than Church any day of the week. However, I would also prefer sending juvie's to church over prisons. Prisons are dangerous places, not a rehab clinic. We could end up making worse criminals than better people in a prison.
This is keeping in mind that I have come to terms that America will NEVER have separation of Church and State...not really especially in crimes that stay within state boundaries.
BlueMan Votes
(903 posts)he could blow the judges mind by joining here:
http://local.yahoo.com/info-29728326-islamic-society-of-muskogeemasjid-annur-muskogee;_ylt=AqSMVWQw8riWV639gqj_ilWHNcIF;_ylv=3?csz=Muskogee%2C+OK
renie408
(9,854 posts)Hell, I thought they seceded a long time ago...even before this latest round of psychotic bullshit.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)and people say we are ignorant. Sheesh.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)and actually accomplish something. Church? Sorry, that won't work. He could just sit there and sleep through it. Take it from a Catholic School (12 years) graduate. You can turn off preaching if you want to.
RepublicansRZombies
(982 posts)Community service of course!
What's next, their favorite white collar criminals and pedophiles get to go to church instead of jail?
treestar
(82,383 posts)It didn't before (as it is said he already went to church).
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)it violates the separation between church and state. Any thoughts?
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)where in the constitution is there a separation of church and state cause it's not in the 1st amendment. i used to think that as well till i read it. it's like the gun people who leave out the part of a well regulated militia being necessary xcpt here people insert words into it that arent there.
the 1st amendment says that the government cant use laws to create a religion nor can it use laws to prohibit one. it says nothing about participating in an established religion or that there should be a "wall" between them
billh58
(6,655 posts)"Separation of Church and State" is a concept which is taken from the Establishment Clause, and was indeed the intent of the Founders.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/s/separation-of-church-and-state/
http://civilrights.uslegal.com/establishment-of-religion-clause/
In this particular case it doesn't appear that there is an "aid or preference" issue for a particular religion, but it could be seen as government imposition on religious freedom (as in the freedom NOT to participate).
The argument that the defendant had the freedom of choice of either going to church or going to jail could also be viewed as a form of coercion.
Prometheus_unbound
(57 posts)If the judge had said 10 years of mosque? Yes. So it IS an issue.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)What a terrible sentence and really skirting the line between church and state. If its not legally questionable, it certainly violates the spirit of the law.
malthaussen
(18,560 posts)But since it was part of the plea bargain, obviously no one is going to appeal or test it.
n/t