A friend of mine's husband was sentenced to attend church at least once a week as part of of his probation. I'd like to know if that's a violation of his civil rights, according to the freedom from religion act. In response: Yes, he is in Texas and they do see that there. Probation is NOT an alternative to jail - have you ever heard of someone who committed murder be given a choice of probation or prison? This charge was a misdemeanor and the DA asked for and received the request for church attendence of at least once a week. I understand creative sentencing, but I feel this oversteps the boundries of the basic constitutional rights. Granted some rights are stripped from from you when you're put on probation such as the right to bear arms, but freedom from religion is not one of those rights. You still have a choice whether or not to worship. It was not a matter of go to church or go to jail. Yes it is although he seems to need Jesus in his life. Does he live in a rural town? I don't think something like this would happen in a place like New York City but I could see this happening in a place in the Carolinas or Texas. It depends on the state's laws. Check with an attorney. Yes, it is. lol. do you live in texas? - cause they'd never see the problem there Judge's sentence: Church or jail
Man accused of racial slurs, threatening cabbie agrees to attend predominantly black service
Brett Haines (right), with lawyer Dennis Deters, told Judge William Mallory Jr. that he's not a church-goer, but would attend a black church.
A judge gave Brett Haines a choice Friday: Go to jail or go to church.
The Anderson Township man, convicted of disorderly conduct, immediately chose six weeks of Sunday worship over 30 days in the Hamilton County Justice Center.
But there's a catch.
Haines, who was accused of using racial slurs and threatening a black cab driver, must attend services at a predominantly black church.
"It seems readily apparent to me that you don't like black people," Judge William Mallory Jr. told Haines. "That's OK with me. But you have to understand that you are at the whim and authority of a black judge."
That's when Mallory offered church as an alternative sentence, an option he said might broaden Haines' cultural awareness.
"If you want to get out of jail, you're going to have to raise your black consciousness," the judge said.
Mallory said he was concerned about maintaining a separation between church and state, so he asked Haines whether the option would offend his beliefs. Haines said he was not a church-goer, but would like to give it a try.
"Absolutely," he said when given the choice.
His lawyer, Dennis Deters, said his client told him that the sentence might do him some good, and assistant prosecutor Kirstin Fullen raised no objection.
She said Haines, 36, was arrested Nov. 26 in Newtown after threatening cab driver David Wilson and Wilson's wife.
Fullen said the intoxicated Haines threatened to punch Wilson, used racial slurs and said he hated black people.
Mallory told Haines he must attend six consecutive Sunday services, starting this Sunday, and get the minister to sign a church program to prove he was there.
Wilson said he hoped the sentence would work, but he would have preferred Haines serve his 30 days.
"Church don't change everybody," he said.
====================================
June 01, 2005
Judge Sentences Drug Abuser to Church
Today on Studio B with Shepard Smith, he spoke with Judge Andrew Napolitano about a judge in Kentucky who sentenced a man to either, jail, rehabilitation or church. I used the above title because this is what the banner on Fox read when the story was playing.
Andrew Napolitano stayed true to the law as he usually does on Studio B and when he's not playing 'host' later in the evening. But this time he interjected some 'coddling' of the Fox audience in explaining why it was wrong for the judge in Kentucky to sentence the man to 'church'.
In a segment titled 'Before the Bench' (becoming more and more a regular segment), Smith and Napolitano spoke about the judge in Kentucky and his decision.
The following is my transcript, paraphrased, but pretty much word for word.
Shepard Smith: Alternative sentencing is becoming a popular option with judges, having grafitti offenders paint over the wall or have a judge have a woman give over her her season tickets for football season.
Now, in Kentucky, a judge has sentenced a drug abuser to either go to jail, to rehab or to church. Here in Studio B is our senior judicial analyst, Judge Andrew Napolitano.
Andrew Napolitano: The fertile minds of judges seems to know no limit.
SS: Can you do that? (Sentence someone to 'church')
AN: No, you cannot do it. You can order the person who breaks the schoolhouse window to wash the windows because washing windows does not involve a fundemental liberty like speech or thought or a religion.
Now, and you and I might be in favor of going to church as are a lot of our viewers (gee, you think?), as might the judge, but the judge is part of the government and the government can't force someone to go to church because that forces them against their will to violate their right 'not' (his emphasis) to go to church.
SS: Well, you might argue that, some may argue that this person was given the option of going away to the hoosegow (yes, Smith said this word) or given the option of doing community service or going to church.
AN: That's the judges argument. I'm not forcing you, you have chosen this among the three. Obviously, there's some subtle pressure to choose going to church.
SS: I'd say.
AN: Because, whatever you think of church, it's a lot more pleasant than jail or rehabilitation (says who?).
But when it comes down to someting like fundemental liberty like speech or travel or thought or privacy, the government can't coerce you and it can't tempt you.
For example, the judge couldn't say 'you can stay out of jail if you promise to vote for the democrats'. Or 'you can stay out of jail if you criticize George W. Bush'. That would be 'forcing' (his emphasis)speech as opposed to allowing the person to freely choose their speech.
SS: And even if you gave them the option of jail, rehab or trashing George W. Bush, that still wouldn't be fair.
AN: Right, because you are giving them a benefit, staying out of jail in return for tampering with their right to make free choices. In one case speech in another case worship.
SS: What would you say to this judge, judge? I mean, judges do some freaky stuff.
AN: He might be going from his heart rather than his head. And, I would say if the person doesn't belong in jail, if they have a habit, let them go to rehab, but let them decide whether to worship or not and if so, where.
SS: Is there a lot more God in court lately? Or is it just that we're hearing more about it?
AN: I think we're hearing more about it. In 37 states the judges are elected and in many of those states they are elected by a local constituency, not statewide. They may very well want to appeal to the religious interests of the local constituency. That's where 'God' comes into court, when judges are up for reelection. That's when they tend to do things that they think the voters would want them to do.
I don't think we want that in judges. I think we want them to be brutally fair.
SS: People also find God in jail.
AN: Absolutely, they come out and they become preachers.
SS: Thank you, Judge Napolitano.
Comment: I think that the segment was factual, though, please note that Napolitano had to get in the 'Now, and you and I might be in favor of going to church as are a lot of our viewers' part. It's like he's saying that it's the 'right' thing to do according to you and me and our viewers , but it's not the law. I especially enjoyed the way he was convincing the viewers that this couldn't be done, using the examples of 'having to vote for democrats' or 'criticizing George W. Bush' to prove his point.
And please check out the exchange where Smith gives the example of trashing George W. Bush not being fair and Napolitano turns around and says 'Right, because you are giving them a benefit...' So now it's a benefit to be able to trash George W. Bush? (Just a little levity)
And Napolitano softened the blow by saying that the judge was going with his heart, not his head. No activist judge here, he meant well.
But I'm still pondering - is church better than jail or rehab? Like they say, we report, you decide.
======================================...
Looks like its common, I found a few dozen other stories. Its legal until some one stops it...LOL Okay, there is more to this story than your telling us. What did he do? If he has to go to meetings like AA and the closest one is in a church, he could always drive to another county. That is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard!
I do not believe in CHURCH! God yes Not Church. And after the crap we are being put through on holidays now with jesus and christmas and alot of stores say happy holidays cause they cant offend anyone. Whats the point?
I feel that if our judicial system was ran the way our forfathers wanted it to be yes I can see that as a logical punnishment. Our constitution was writen on christian morals and beliefs. But our constitution has been picked apart. I would fight the fact if I was Him it is agenst his rights theoryeticlly? how is it specifically a violation of civil rights??
nobody is forcing him to pray...
nobody is forcing him to listen to the preacher...
nobody is forcing him to put money in the plate ...
so what.. he goes to a place he doesnt like?..
i guess you would prefer jail instead...
personally i think church will have a much more positive affect on him..
personally.. if he is so hellbent against going to church, id throw his *** in jail just for being so ungreatful..
maybe even consider the notion that it was divine intervention that the judge gave him probation provided that he attend church.. instead of jail in the first place..
----
creative sentencing.. dam. that was the word i was looking for.. thanks chs.. No, it is not a violation of civil rights. It is creative sentencing. Probation is a sentencing alternative to jail or prison and it sounds like the judge is doing the defenant a favor by using his or her discretion to offer probation.
By accepting probation as an alternative to jail, the defendant must be willing to accept certain restrictions on his or her freedoms. I would say that jail time is a lot more restrictive on the defendant's civil rights than spending an hour or so in church on a Sunday.
Chances are this sentence was part of a plea bargain, so the defendant won't get a lot of sympathy from me. |
