Teen Sentenced To Attend Church In Order To Avoid Jail Time

@Lustig Andrei,

Why, if the parents of the dead boy didn't object?

@JPB,

Because it is not within the jurisdiction of the judiciary to assume a role that promotes religion.

@Lustig Andrei,

I agree, but that doesn't mean that he's going to get overruled when there's no one with standing to pursue a change in sentencing. The ACLU wants to weigh in but the earlier articles I read stated they have no basis to appeal the sentence because they don't have a client.

1 Reply

Quote:

Ryan Kiesel, the executive director of the Oklahoma chapter of the ACLU, tells the Religion News Service that the church requirement is a “clear violation of the First Amendment.” However, the defense and the victim’s family both supported the requirement and an appeal is unlikely.

“If the court or the district attorney attempts to enforce this requirement, we will look at possible ways to intervene,” Kiesel told the Religion News Service. “I know the boy agreed to this, but is someone facing a judge in open court really making a voluntary decision? Government officials should not be involved in what is a very personal choice.” American Bar Association Journal

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

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.

Possibly he's not being punished because he' the only one who survived. Maybe it's because he was the only one driving.

I'm not advocating prison time. He was convicted of manslaughter, and that is adequate. What I continue to question is the appropriateness of the church attendence as part of the sentence, especially as he was already a church goer.

1 Reply

@roger,

I changed my mind. It does not matter whether he attended church on a regular basis.

1 Reply

Quote:

"Both families were satisfied with the decision," Norman said in an interview. "I talked to the district attorney before I passed sentence. I did what I felt like I needed to do."

In order to challenge the constitutionality of the church attendance requirement, an individual or organization must show that it has legal standing to do so. Kiesel said the ACLU is considering what options they have. Huff Post

0 Replies

@roger,

Yup, since the kid missed the meaning of be your brother's keeper in the first place, not sure what he'll learn on this imposed 10 year attendance sentence.

0 Replies

@JPB,

Quote:

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.

The "we" is the people, as in, "we the people"--we write the laws, and the sentencing guidelines, through our elected representatives, and that includes drunk driving laws.

And, when a judge hands down a sentence, he is doing it in the name of the state--in the name of "we the people of the state..."

"We" also wrote and ratified a Constitution, with a First Amendment, that the judge is ethically, as well as legally, bound to uphold, and which he is knowingly disregarding in his sentence mandating church attendance.

Quote:

Do you advocate strict sentencing guidelines or judicial discretion?

I advocate judicial discretion--but that does not include giving judges the discretion of disregarding the provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

Quote:

None of the principles involved in the case object so why is it any business of anyone else?

When judges start disregarding the Constitution, it becomes everyone's business.

It doesn't matter what the parties involved agree to, the judge is the one person in that courtroom who has the specific duty to interpret, and uphold, the law, and he is obligated to make sure that any agreements reached do not violate law or provisions of the Constitution.

In this specific case, the judge is knowingly disregarding the Constitution because it conflicts with his own personal beliefs regarding the values of Church attendance and faith in Jesus Christ--and he has said as much--and he has taken it upon himself to further the promotion of such beliefs, and to back them with the force of law. If this teen fails to attend church, he can be subjected to a 10 year prison sentence--and that's a clear violation of his Constitutional rights. The state simply has no right to tell anyone they must attend religious services.

I think this judge has knowingly engaged in unethical conduct, and if the ACLU can't go after him, I think a Bar Association--his legal peers--should do that on ethics grounds. I have no regard for a judge, like this one, who chooses to place himself above the law.

0 Replies

@JPB,

Yes, but just because all parties agree to a judgement doesn't make it right. Or are you promoting this because of his age? I think, instead, he would have benefitted more from volunteering with MADD or other such organizations. He already goes to church, apparently, so this is not adding anything.

And to add in there that he has to graduate high school and a welding course is completely irrelevant to the case.

There was a 20 yr old man here just recently convicted to 3 years for shaking his 4 month old baby to death - he also threw her against a wall. 3 years? That was murder. Why only 3 years?

2 Replies

@Mame,

Even more to the point would have been a suspension of this teen's driver's license, and his driving privileges, for at least several years, at least until he is 21.

While that's not within the judge's jurisdiction, it's really a DMV matter, I haven't read anything about this case to suggest that this teen has had his driving privileges suspended.

1 Reply

@Mame,

I'm promoting it as an opportunity for Alred to get through the rest of his life knowing his actions resulted in the death of his best friend. He also has to attend counseling sessions -- not just complete high school and a welding course. I think the judge was trying to give the kid a chance at living with his guilt. Alred is said to be extremely remorseful and it was when he hugged the other boy's parents that the judge thought of sending him to counseling and church. I have a feeling there's more to this than a renegade judge and since the dead boy's parents feel there's been justice in the case then I don't see who we are to say otherwise.

1 Reply

@firefly,

Good point! Suspend his driving license, get him some counselling, and volunteer at MADD for 5 years. I think that's way more appropriate. I don't want to penalize him (too much). His friend was responsible, too. He got into the car with a drinking driver and he wasn't wearing his seatbelt (he was ejected from the car), so... kids do stupid things.

0 Replies

@JPB,

Let's look at the law in Oklahoma...

Quote:

Manslaughter

If you are DUI or DWI and have an accident where a death results, you can be charged with Manslaughter which is a felony crime in Oklahoma. Manslaughter carries a penalty of minimum four years up to life in prison.
http://www.okdui.com/ok.dui.penalties

The mitigating factor in this case was the teen's age--he was under 21 and his BAC level was below the adult limit of .08.

Quote:

DUI Under 21

If you are under the age of twenty-one and have a BAC of .02 or more, you can be charged with DUI Under 21.
http://www.okdui.com/ok.dui.penalties

Alred's two BAC level readings were .06 and .07--so the DUI under 21 charge, taken alone, would not carry any jail time, as it would for an adult with a BAC level .08+.
That does give the judge some leeway in sentencing a minor on a DUI manslaughter charge--the DUI portion of the charge is regarded somewhat less seriously than it might be with an adult, although Oklahoma obviously has zero tolerance for underage drinking and driving..

Giving this teen a 10 year suspended sentence--on a manslaughter charge that carries only a minimum 4 year sentence--is actually too harsh a penalty, since if Alred violates the conditions of his probation, including the problematic, and unconstitutional, mandatory church attendance, he faces 10 years in prison.
I find that punishment unduly harsh in this situation.

I find little right with this judge's sentencing.

Sentencing Alred to spend weekends in jail, at least until he reached the age of 18, would have made far more sense, in terms of the offense, and the sentencing guidelines, than mandating 10 years of church attendance. He could attend those church services in jail, if he so wished. But I do feel he should have been required to give something up--in terms of his freedom, and free time, and social life--as a punishment for the life that was lost due to his irresponsible driving, and, even though his friend had also been drinking, that doesn't change Alred's responsibility as the driver. A jail sentence, to be served on weekends, for a limited period, in addition to counseling and community service, would have been a much more appropriate and reasonable alternative to the one the judge imposed.

Why should anyone believe there is any connection between drunk driving--or drunk driving prevention--and church attendance?

The judge's sentence seems not just unconstitutional, it also seems illogical and rather crazy. He's a religious zealot who is misusing his legal authority to promote his personal views of religion, and Christianity in particular.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

He's a religious zealot who is misusing his legal authority to promote his personal views of religion, and Christianity in particular.

facts not in evidence. What we do know is that the ruling is deeply flawed, we dont know however why this judge did it.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Why, if the parents of the dead boy didn't object?

Would you object to the application of Sharia law in the U.S. if the families involved don't object?

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

The judge's sentence seems not just unconstitutional, it also seems illogical and rather crazy. He's a religious zealot who is misusing his legal authority to promote his personal views of religion, and Christianity in particular.

I'm sure your opinion is weighing heavily on him. He's done what he feels is the best thing in this case. That others not involved in any way feel otherwise isn't going to have much sway. What's the ACLU going to do, file a claim on behalf of Alred if he shows up in church every week (something he apparently does anyway)? There's no case here. None of the principles are complaining that the sentence is too harsh or too lenient. There's no complaint. If a judge sentenced me to ten years of attending church I'd be the first person dialing the ACLU. I can't see why folks are upset about a sentence that is being embraced by all of the principles.

3 Replies

@ehBeth,

That depends on the specific application. I don't know enough about the specifics of Sharia law to answer that honestly.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

facts not in evidence. What we do know is that the ruling is deeply flawed, we dont know however why this judge did it.

The judge makes no bones about his own religious views, and his desire to promote them--he has advised church attendance in other cases, even though this is the first time he's imposed it as part of a sentence. He believes salvation is obtained by a belief in, and connection with, Christ. He's not just advocating religion in general, he's promoting Christianity.

Quote:

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

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

I can't see why folks are upset about a sentence that is being embraced by all of the principles.

I see it as being very similar to the old days when men were not punished for beating their wives, and wives didn't object as they knew they'd just be beaten again. I think we have an obligation as a society to look at decisions like this and make sure they fall within the laws of the country - not 2 families' desires.

On Sharia/h law:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/shariah-law.html

Quote:

The National Association of Women and the Law, the Canadian Council of Muslim Women, and the National Organization of Immigrant and Visible Minority Women of Canada argued that under Shariah law, men and women are not treated equally.

They argued that women fare far worse in divorce, child custody and inheritance matters under Shariah law. For instance, a woman can only inherit half as much as a man can. If a divorced woman remarries, custody of the children from her previous marriage may revert to the children's father.

Quote:

Most of the concerns about the creation of "Shariah" tribunals have focused on the fear that Muslim women may feel they are being forced into taking part in a process of binding arbitration according to Muslim family law instead of resolving their disputes through the court system.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/islsharia.htm

Quote:

Within Sharia law, there are a group of "Haram" offenses which carry severe punishments. These include pre-marital sexual intercourse, sex by divorced persons, post-marital sex, adultery, false accusation of unlawful intercourse, drinking alcohol, theft, and highway robbery. Haram sexual offenses can carry a sentence of stoning to death or severe flogging.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/tag/sharia-law

1 Reply

Teen Sentenced To Attend Church In Order To Avoid Jail Time

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know