@firefly,
Maybe, maybe, maybe. Maybe they're devout Christians who actually follow the tenets of their faith and forgive those who trespass against them.
@JPB,
Quote:No, the law is the law and was applied. The sentence to the guilty plea is the only thing people are having a problem with. He's guilty of manslaughter. He was charged and pled guilty. There's no case of not applying a law here.
The sentence is part of the application of the law. That's why there are mandatory sentences and sentencing guidelines attached to laws.
Penalties for manslaughter in Oklahoma do not include 10 years of mandatory church attendance.
@firefly,
Yes, people are silent for many reasons. The state however is not right to use its unsupported assumption that the silent are weak and have been manipulated by an abuser into silence as an excuse to jump in where it has not been invited and to where to all appearances it is not wanted.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Am I correct that in Germany the courts rarely punish for the acts of youth after they reach 21 years old? In america increasingly one bad act as a child is used to justify the state ruin that life well into adulthood.
I don't understand you here, it seems.
Criminal youth law is for those under 18. It can be (and is) used as well for those between 18 and 21, if the court thinks, they acted like under 18's.
For those older than 21, it's the normal adult criminal code.
I am astounded by the depth of antipathy this sentence has generated in some participating in this thread.
The young man is guilty of taking the life of another.
Clearly, he did not do so with malice, and the circumstances of the incident that led to the death of the victim were all too common in our society, but someone is still dead and all that they may ever have done or been was taken from them.
I'm certainly not suggesting that he should have gotten the chair or should spend the rest of his life in jail, but to focus on one of the elements of a sentence that excused him from jail time because it involved mandatory attendance at a church (of his choice), seems, to me, strangely obsessive, and even perverse.
Obviously firefly is of the opinion that the notion of separation of Church and State (which we, apparently, have to keep reminding everyone doesn't actually appear in the Constitution) is some inviolable principle of our nation which when even remotely compromised spreads ruination across the land.
This is an argument born of an antipathy toward religion, not a desire to keep the matter neutral within the laws of our land.
People who despise religion (whether rightly or wrongly) should not get to impose their repugnance on the rest of us by virtue of a shallow, at best, argument about separation of Church and State.
The morons in this thread that have argued the judge was forcefully recruiting for Christianity are just that, because they allowed their reflexive antipathy for Christianity (born far more from a sense of what is cool than any intellectual consideration) to govern their keyboards and prove they never read anything about the case.
The only valid argument concerning this case is whether or not the young man's punishment should have included jail time.
And punishment is what should be considered.
That we are, arguably at this point in time, a nation of laws means that we don't toss out our laws because it serves the politically powerful or our personal sentiments.
This young man broke one of our laws and someone died as a result. He deserves punishment. The only rational issue is whether he got the punishment he deserved.
@Walter Hinteler,
Quote:I don't understand you here, it seems.
Criminal youth law is for those under 18. It can be (and is) used as well for those between 18 and 21, if the court thinks, they acted like under 18's.
apparently...
in america youth crimes were handled by juvy courts which made a huge effort to be done with punishment by 18, and certainly by 21 yo. the idea was that the newly minted adult should get a chance to prove that they were ready, and that crimes as children should not ruin their ability to become contributing adults, thus the "do over" at 21 yo. this has all gone by the boards here, now the most important thing is to get "enough" punishment in, no matter how long this takes and how impossible this make it to ever build a life. my belief is that the germans are more like we used to be than we are now in theory of how to handle punishment of youth.
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote: my belief is that the germans are more like we used to be than we are now in theory of how to handle punishment of youth.
Our Youth Courts Law is originally from 1923 ...
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:And punishment is what should be considered
just as the goal of parenting is not to keep the kids safe but rather is to mint happy capable adults the goal of the justice system when dealing with youth is not punishment. keeping kids safe is a means to mint adults, and punishment is a means to teach youth what is expected by this society. when they get to be 21 yo we should turn them loose to see if they are willing to do it.
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
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.
It's completely irrelevant what the principals in the case feel and who does or does not embrace the sentence. The law should be applied equally to everyone. Mandating church attendance is not within the law. And I'm not 'upset' about the sentence; I just completely disagree about its appropriateness.
What if the judge imposed something equally ridiculous, such as Alred having to attend cooking classes or get straight A's in high school? There's no relevance to his actions with such a sentence.
The punishment should fit the crime. Religion has absolutely nothing to do with his actions.
Abstaining from alcohol, serving the community for a number of years on weekends, reporting to a probation officer, researching the effects of alcohol... these are more appropriate than having to attend church and complete a welding course.
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
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.
I see that point but I still believe sentencing to religion/church is unconstitutional. I'm thinking the ACLU might well come across another similar case where there would be a client to test this question.
@ossobuco,
Surely, and if there's a case where the convicted individual wants to challenge the constitutionality of his sentence then I'd be cheering him on. I don't get the outrage from uninterested parties in this case.
@JPB,
What 'outrage'? You keep mentioning this but I don't see anyone 'outraged' here. People are just chiming in with their opinions as you are.
@JPB,
I'm interested because I think that portion of the sentence is out of bounds re constitutionality, and that by extension that the sentence can be levied affects all citizens. Like Mame, I'm not upset, but I have a different point of view than those who think the sentence is fine..
@ossobuco,
Quote:I see that point but I still believe sentencing to religion/church is unconstitutional. I'm thinking the ACLU might well come across another similar case where there would be a client to test this question.
Even ruling that someone must attend AA meetings has been found unlawful by the courts, because of the spiritual/religious nature of that organization, so mandating church attendance is an even more egregious violation of Constitutional boundaries on the part of the state.
And there will be problems trying to make sure that Alred complies--and the Muskogee County District Attorney has voiced such concerns.
Quote:MUSKOGEE - A judge's decision to require a teenager to attend church as part of a deferred sentence for manslaughter may not be enforceable, a prosecutor said.
Muskogee County District Attorney Larry Moore said he knows of no law that would allow the judge to make it a condition of the teen's sentence.
"I'm not aware of any authority to order someone to participate in a religious event as part of punishment," Moore said. "I anticipate a constitutional issue with separation of church and state." ...
But Moore said the church condition puts his office, which supervises offenders, in a quandary if Alred doesn't go to church.
By all accounts, Alred attends church anyway. His minister was in the courtroom.
"If that presents itself, I think I would be ethically required to make sure it is an enforceable position," Moore said. "I'm all for going to church. I go to church all the time, but I don't have the authority to make you go to church, nor is it my job to make you go to church.
"I'd love for courts to order somebody to go to church, but part of my job is to uphold the Constitution."
Moore said he has previously heard Norman urge defendants to attend church. But this is the first court order on a sentence of punishment that he is aware of.
As part of probation, Moore said that Alred will report to his office once a month.
"If this comes up, as far as a violation, I'll not do anything until we make sure that it can be ordered and the violation of such is not unconstitutional," Moore said.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=14&articleid=20121118_14_A19_CUTLIN40518
If it comes up as a probation violation, the ACLU could likely intervene on behalf of Alred. In the meantime, the ACLU has said it would file a complaint against Judge Norman with the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints, an agency that investigates judicial misconduct, seeking an official reprimand or other sanctions. If they do that, there will have to be some response to their complaint.
.
What's shocking is that Judge Norman admits he is clueless regarding the constitutionality of his ruling. The issue never seems to have occurred to him.
Maybe he should find out whether his decisions violate the Constitution--which he is duty bound to uphold--before he renders them.
Technically it's the 14th amendment right?
Cause the first amendment technically applies to congress, so granting and restricting rights is left to the left to the Courts. But the 14th amendment gives the fed gov to apply bill of rights at the state level. I'm not too sure on this, so correct me if I'm wrong.
@firefly,
Oh for Christ's sake . . . next you'll expect him to
read the constitution.
@aspvenom,
The First Amendment has been interpreted, by the Supreme Court I believe, to apply generally to government, and not just to Congress--it would apply to mandates imposed by a judge.
Then again, Oklahoma is rather bizarre in using religion as a basis for decisioning.
http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2012/09/16/oklahoma-judge-cites-bible-denying-transgender-name-changes
As to the matter of Alred, both families agreed to it. The emotional toll that the death will have on Alred is unknown to us. A friend of mine was in an accident several years ago in which alcohol was involved and a passenger in the car was killed. Both of them were teenagers and at the time no legal action was taken against my friend who was driving while intoxicated. In the years after, without counseling or anything else to in some way address the matter and his guilt level, he took to a life of random crimes, increased drinking, involvement with various drugs- both street and prescription, before finally starting to straighten up just after his 50th birthday. He still becomes quite emotional and cries when he recalls that life changing incident. Perhaps part of what the judge in the Alred case is seeking is to help the youngster learn about forgiveness.
Of additional interest to me is how the judge has done the 'church' sentence before and yet people weren't bothered by it, not even the ACLU which is now deciding to attack. Where were all these people before?
@firefly,
I think Aspvenom was referring to the "incorporation" of constitutional rights via the 14th amendment. Until the process of incorporation began, the Supremes routinely ruled that constitutional strictures bound the Federal government, but not the states.
