11
   

Teen Sentenced To Attend Church In Order To Avoid Jail Time

 
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 07:13 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
It shocks me that Bar Associations, as well as other judges, have not commented on this matter--in terms of the ethics of this judge's behavior, as well as the matter of Constitutionality, in this particular sentence.



0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 07:25 pm
An interesting alternate sentence might have been to sentence this teen to weekends in jail or a juvenile detention center--which could even be served in protective housing--at least until he graduates from high school or turns 18.

That sort of sentence would avoid the more negative consequences of a lengthy prison sentence for this crime, yet it wouldn't minimize the severity of the offense. It would also impinge on this teen's free time and social life, and that might well make a greater meaningful impact on him than mandating church attendance.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 09:24 pm
@firefly,
It has to do with the judge's belief system, which is his business, but not something to assign as punishment/amelioration to others. Fat no no.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 09:27 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
This is somewhat a quagmire in the making - how judges get appointed or voted for.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 10:09 pm
@firefly,
It is so refreshing to see you Firefly on the right side for a change...that bitch Sandy really messed with you head didn't she!
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 10:34 pm
Quote:
Judge Sentences Teen to Church
By Christina Lopez | ABC News Blogs
Nov 16, 2012

Anybody who knows Oklahoma District Court Judge Mike Norman probably yawned at the news that he'd sentenced a teen offender to attend church as part of his probation arrangement, and that the judge's pastor was in the courtroom at the time.

Not only had he handed down such a sentence before, but he'd required one man to bring the church program back with him when he reported to court.

"The Lord works in many ways," Norman, 69, told ABC News today. "I've done a little bit of this kind of thing before, but never on such a serious charge."

Norman sentenced Tyler Alred, 17, Tuesday after he pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter in August for killing friend and passenger John Luke Dum in a car crash.

Dum died on impact in December after Alred crashed his Chevrolet pickup truck, ejecting Dum. Alred was 16 at the time of the crash and had been drinking prior to the deadly accident.

Oklahoma Highway Patrol issued a Breathalyzer at the time, and although Alred was under the state's legal alcohol limit, he had been drinking underage.

The judge could have sent Alred to jail but, instead, taking into account his clean criminal and school records, sentenced him to wear a drug and alcohol bracelet, participate in counseling groups and attend a church of his choosing - weekly. He must also graduate from high school.

To avoid jail time, Norman gave Alred a maximum 10-year deferred sentence.

He'd never passed down the church-attendance requirement for someone as young as Alred, said Norman, who has worked as a district Judge in Muskogee for 14 years.

"It's not going to be automatic, I guarantee you," Norman said of the church sentence on future manslaughter charges. "There are a lot of people who say I can't do what I did. They're telling me I can't legally sentence someone to church."

Alred's lawyer is not among the critics. "I usually represent outlaws and criminals," defense attorney Donn Baker told the Muskogee Phoenix. "This is a kid that made a mistake. I think he's worth saving."

In the courtroom this week, an emotional scene between the victim's family and Alred played out after statements from Dum's mother, father and two sisters were read during the sentencing. Dum's father and Alred stood up in court, turned toward each other and embraced one another.

"At that moment, it sure became a reality to me that I would sentence this boy to church" to help set him on the right path, Norman, a member of First Baptist Church in Muskogee, said. "There's nothing I can do to make this up to the family.

"I told my preacher I thought I led more people to Jesus than he had but, then again, more of my people have amnesia. They soon forget once they get out of jail."

After completing the rest of the requirements in his sentence, Alred will have the charge removed from his record.

"Only time will tell if we've saved Tyler Alred's life," the judge said.
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/oklahoma-judge-sentences-teen-church-10-years-204920227--abc-news-topstories.html
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Sat 24 Nov, 2012 10:45 pm
Quote:
Although rare, several judges like Norman have been recognized in the past for sentencing convicts to church. A city judge in Bay Minette, Alabama made headlines last year when he began offering a choice between church or jail time. Other judges have been using non-Christian alternatives to doing hard time, as a city judge in Missouri says that he frequently orders convicts to perform Transcendental Meditation, a practice rooted in Hinduism.
http://christiannews.net/2012/11/24/judge-who-sentenced-boy-to-ten-years-of-church-attendance-stands-by-decision/


I think someone should lay down the law to these judges. They're on the bench, not in the pulpit, and their function, and sphere of authority, is purely secular. Religious attendance and religious practices should play no part in their sentencing.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 12:23 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:


I think someone should lay down the law to these judges. They're on the bench, not in the pulpit, and their function, and sphere of authority, is purely secular. Religious attendance and religious practices should play no part in their sentencing.

http://www.cool-smileys.com/images/207.gif
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 06:18 am
is it the church aspect or the supposed lack of punishment that bothers so many

while i think it's a stupid idea, i still say i'd take the church if it was offered to me, i'd act the part, even pretend to love jaysus (many religious folk already do, look at all the disgraced preachers we've had) and be on my way

beats getting raped in a shower, wait, it's not a catholic church is it Razz
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 06:52 am
I'm not offended by it. Both sets of parents agreed with his approach -- thinking, apparently, that the boy needs a good dose of religion to mend his ways. The judge is right. They live in the bible belt and this kind of ruling isn't going to get much traction by a prosecutor who is looking at his next election.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 09:33 am
@JPB,
We get back to "the standards and accepted practices of the community"
District and circuit Judges in the various courts (Except divorce court) often include some form of "moral reeducation" for poor behavior

crimes such as this

Sending him to jail for something that was clearly not intended but was a judgement lapse is, to me, unenlightened. Remember, both kids were drinking so to make the driver is the one to suffer just because hes the only one who survived is not the way of justice (IMHO). Hes being punished mostly because of impaired reflexes and poor driving skills due to brain chemistry and metabolic reactions seems extreme. That would only be revenge. (Im not adverse to revenge as a motive of punishment for such things as real murder) This however was a tragic accident.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 10:25 am
I think the judge did what he considered the best way to handle the unfortunate situation. I think religion in general is a net negative for society, but I also think religion can be a net positive for some individuals.

This kid did a dumb thing (many, many kids do)...and he is being punished in a reasonable, humane way...which MAY prove to be a positive for him. I seriously doubt sentencing him to prison would produce a positive result...and might easily produce a very negative result.

Since the parties agreed to the sentence, I have no problem with it.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 10:43 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Since the parties agreed to the sentence, I have no problem with it.
That's exactly the key sentence, I think.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 11:41 am
@JPB,
Quote:
They live in the bible belt ...

Even in the Bible Belt, judges cannot disregard the First Amendment of the Constitution--we have a separation of church and state. The state has no business telling anyone they must attend religious services.

And the judge in this case admits his ruling was probably not legal.

firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 11:48 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Sending him to jail for something that was clearly not intended but was a judgement lapse is, to me, unenlightened. Remember, both kids were drinking so to make the driver is the one to suffer just because hes the only one who survived is not the way of justice (IMHO). Hes being punished mostly because of impaired reflexes and poor driving skills due to brain chemistry and metabolic reactions seems extreme. That would only be revenge. (Im not adverse to revenge as a motive of punishment for such things as real murder) This however was a tragic accident.

Couldn't the same thing be said of all drunk driving homicides?

Should we mandate that all drunk drivers involved in such deaths attend religious services, rather than send them to jail?

The only really mitigating factor I see in this case is the age of the defendant--he was only 16 at the time, and I do feel a sentence should take that into account.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 11:52 am
@firefly,
Right, but since no one with any standing in the case is objecting then he can proceed as he chooses.

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Show me where Congress passed such a law in this case. This isn't a first amendment case. Perhaps it wouldn't stand constitutional scrutiny but no one involved in the case seems to care.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 11:56 am
@firefly,
firefly wrote:
Should we mandate that all drunk drivers involved in such deaths attend religious services, rather than send them to jail?


Who is the "we" you're referencing? It was a judge who sentenced a kid to go sit in a pew. There's no "we" here. It's two families and a prosecuting attorney and court system who all came to an agreement. Do you advocate strict sentencing guidelines or judicial discretion? I think a couple of kids who get their hands on some booze and then get into a car is a good time for judicial discretion. None of the principles involved in the case object so why is it any business of anyone else?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 12:10 pm
@JPB,
I wonder why this discussion is even taking place. I think you are being consistant with the spirit of justice in this case. Seems that everyone is desirous of the kid doing some "hard time" for this. He will carry a manslaughter charge with him for the rest of his life and I hear that he was sincerely contrite.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 12:14 pm
Quote:
The judge could have sent Alred to jail but, instead, taking into account his clean criminal and school records, sentenced him to wear a drug and alcohol bracelet, participate in counseling groups and attend a church of his choosing - weekly. He must also graduate from high school.

To avoid jail time, Norman gave Alred a maximum 10-year deferred sentence.


...

After completing the rest of the requirements in his sentence, Alred will have the charge removed from his record.

"Only time will tell if we've saved Tyler Alred's life," the judge said.


He could still get jail time. But he can also get the charge removed from his record. I think it was creative and just. Alred will have to live with his own guilt forever.
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  3  
Reply Sun 25 Nov, 2012 12:16 pm
@farmerman,
Wrong. I, for one, am not in favor of the kid doing hard time. That would be a true miscarriage of justice. I am simply opposed to the judge -- any judge -- taking upon oneself the unconstitutional stance of adjudicating a case on a religious, rather than a secular, basis. Surely another solution could have been worked out, e.g. community service in a rehab center or working with troubled youth etc. etc.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/20/2024 at 10:07:57