Judge: Go to jail or go to church

[CTLesq]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']But extending an option ONLY to those who agree to attend religious ceremonies.[/QUOTE]

I have one question for you: is attending a church service the only way to avoid pleading guilty or is this an additional option available to people in addition to what has been statutorily offered?

I would have a problem with this if it was the ONLY option to avoid jail, but it is in additional to. No one is being required to do anything.

CTL

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='CTLesq']I have one question for you: is attending a church service the only way to avoid pleading guilty or is this an additional option available to people in addition to what has been statutorily offered?

I would have a problem with this if it was the ONLY option to avoid jail, but it is in additional to. No one is being required to do anything.

CTL[/QUOTE]

I forgot to put the link http://premium.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/31/churchsentence.ap/

A Kentucky judge has been offering some drug and alcohol offenders the option of attending worship services instead of going to jail or rehab

If you're found guilty and going to be sentenced, you either get locked up (rehab or jail) or you go to church.

 

[CTLesq]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']I forgot to put the link http://premium.cnn.com/2005/LAW/05/31/churchsentence.ap/



If you're found guilty and going to be sentenced, you either get locked up (rehab or jail) or you go to church. [/QUOTE]

I think you have mis-interpreted the article. Attending a worship service is an option just as rehab would be an option for an alternative incarceration program.

Its not jail or go to a worship service. Friedman's characterization is a misrepresentation of what the judge is offering just as your characterization:

you either get locked up (rehab or jail) or you go to church.

Rehab is not consistent with jail, because you aren't convicted if you go to rehab, ie you wouldn't have a record.

CTL

 

[Quackzilla]

But with both jail and rehab you are locked up and have no access to drugs, but if you go to church you are free to use.

 

[CTLesq]

[quote name='Quackzilla']But with both jail and rehab you are locked up and have no access to drugs, but if you go to church you are free to use.[/QUOTE]

I fail to see your point as it relates to wether there is anything wrong with this option.

CTL

 

[Quackzilla]

[quote name='CTLesq']I fail to see your point as it relates to wether there is anything wrong with this option.

CTL[/QUOTE]

The point is that when you arrest and incarcerate someone for drug use, you don't put them right back on them back on the street to use again.

Might as well just legalize drugs.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='CTLesq']I think you have mis-interpreted the article. Attending a worship service is an option just as rehab would be an option for an alternative incarceration program.

Its not jail or go to a worship service. Friedman's characterization is a misrepresentation of what the judge is offering just as your characterization:

you either get locked up (rehab or jail) or you go to church.

Rehab is not consistent with jail, because you aren't convicted if you go to rehab, ie you wouldn't have a record.

CTL[/QUOTE]

Rehab, when forced, is essentially jail but with a focus on (obviously) rehabilitation instead of punishment. You are still denied freedom, unable to work in your old job etc.. But if someone agrees to attend religious services they can avoid that are all the problems that go with being locked up. This could go against their religion. For example smaller religions (in the u.s.), hindus, jews, muslims, bahai's, buddhists etc. may not have a house of worship nearby (though I'm not sure if a buddhist going to a temple and meditating by themselves would count even if there was one). Pagans would have no services to attend, and atheists (and agnostics) would be forced to attend a service they don't believe in (or even are against) to avoid losing their freedom.

I also think the idea that religious services would realistically make a difference is faulty (obviously there are exceptions, but that's true of anything).

 

[CTLesq]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Rehab, when forced, is essentially jail but with a focus on (obviously) rehabilitation instead of punishment. [/quote]

Absolutely not. We are talking about the difference between having a criminal record and not having one.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']You are still denied freedom, unable to work in your old job etc.. But if someone agrees to attend religious services they can avoid that are all the problems that go with being locked up.[/quote]

And all all drug rebab is in patient? That was not my expierence working in the Connecticut court system. People were placed in programs they attended at night or on the weekends.

But what you are suggesting now is a different argument than this is government sanctioning religion which you would contend would violate the principle of separation of church and state. You are now arguing that rehab is the equivilant of prison. Sorry I disagree, ironically the ACLU lawyer wouldn't take your [new] position either.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']This could go against their religion. For example smaller religions (in the u.s.), hindus, jews, muslims, bahai's, buddhists etc. may not have a house of worship nearby (though I'm not sure if a buddhist going to a temple and meditating by themselves would count even if there was one). Pagans would have no services to attend, and atheists (and agnostics) would be forced to attend a service they don't believe in (or even are against) to avoid losing their freedom.[/quote]

And they would have the option of rehab. Nothing is being taken away from them by offering attending a worship service in addition to rehab.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']I also think the idea that religious services would realistically make a difference is faulty (obviously there are exceptions, but that's true of anything).[/QUOTE]

If we are going to start judging alternative incaceration programs based on their success rates - we probably won't have them around much longer.

[quote name='Quackzilla']The point is that when you arrest and incarcerate someone for drug use, you don't put them right back on them back on the street to use again.

Might as well just legalize drugs.[/quote]

Any time you want to make success with a social welfare program necessary to having it (and by extension funding it with my tax dollars) I am more than willing to have that discussion.

Please bring your checkbook as I will need a substantial down payment on the money society owes me.

CTL

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='CTLesq']Absolutely not. We are talking about the difference between having a criminal record and not having one.[/quote]

I'm not, that was never the point of my argument, or even mentioned by me.

And all all drug rebab is in patient? That was not my expierence working in the Connecticut court system. People were placed in programs they attended at night or on the weekends.

It lessens the level of wrong here if the rehab was out patient, but still I think it's wrong.

But what you are suggesting now is a different argument than this is government sanctioning religion which you would contend would violate the principle of separation of church and state. You are now arguing that rehab is the equivilant of prison. Sorry I disagree, ironically the ACLU lawyer wouldn't take your [new] position either.

New position? Hell that's not even my position (which has been unchanged). My position is that they are both going to result in the loss of freedom and control over ones life. I've focused on the loss of freedom, I didn't not say they were equally bad.

And they would have the option of rehab. Nothing is being taken away from them by offering attending a worship service in addition to rehab.

Again, while I disagree with this even if the rehab is outpatient, freedom is being taken away if the only option is jail, staying at rehab, or worship.

If we are going to start judging alternative incaceration programs based on their success rates - we probably won't have them around much longer.

But there is absolutely no evidence that would warrant the judge deciding this is an alternative to rehab, there is no official recognition of church as rehab, and no evidence to suggest that. In special cases I could see (a person who had a history of alcoholism, but stopped whenever they became involved inr eligion), but nothing more than that. Considering the church/state issue as well, I fail to see how this would be legal.

Any time you want to make success with a social welfare program necessary to having it (and by extension funding it with my tax dollars) I am more than willing to have that discussion.

Please bring your checkbook as I will need a substantial down payment on the money society owes me.

CTL

Take the money from our overseas adventures (once we can leave without screwing it up) and put them into improving our society.

 

[CTLesq]

[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'm not, that was never the point of my argument, or even mentioned by me.[/quote]

Because I don't think you, or many of the other posters who have been opposed to this really understood that is the point.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']It lessens the level of wrong here if the rehab was out patient, but still I think it's wrong.[/quote]

Then how is your position, taken to its logical extreme, that anything other than total release without any sanction is an infringement on a persnon's rights and therefore wrong?

[quote name='alonzomourning23']New position? Hell that's not even my position (which has been unchanged). My position is that they are both going to result in the loss of freedom and control over ones life. I've focused on the loss of freedom, I didn't not say they were equally bad.[/quote]

From your very first post when you started this thread:

Technically he says worship, but that clearly is unconsitutional, not only due to the religious aspect, but that if favors certain religions (or simply religion) as some religious groups do not have actual worship sessions such as mass.

Your entire focus was on religion, only now has it changed to freedom.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Again, while I disagree with this even if the rehab is outpatient, freedom is being taken away if the only option is jail, staying at rehab, or worship. [/quote]

But you don't know what kind of rehad they are offering as its not mentioned in the article - do you? You are guessing.


[quote name='alonzomourning23']ut there is absolutely no evidence that would warrant the judge deciding this is an alternative to rehab,[/quote]

Why not? It is in additon to not in place of anything. It offers more choices. There is nothing restrictive about it.

[quote name='alonzomourning23'] there is no official recognition of church as rehab, and no evidence to suggest that. [/quote]

And? A prosecutor could decide not to prosecute someone because they wore a blue shirt into court and that was his/her favorite color.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']In special cases I could see (a person who had a history of alcoholism, but stopped whenever they became involved inr eligion), but nothing more than that. Considering the church/state issue as well, I fail to see how this would be legal.[/quote]

All within the purview of a judge. There is nothing abusive about offering an additional program by the judge.


[quote name='alonzomourning23'] Take the money from our overseas adventures (once we can leave without screwing it up) and put them into improving our society.[/QUOTE]

Of course - wouldn't want to see one of your beloved domestic social programs actually have to produce results to be funded would we?

Lets cut federal funding of college loans.

CTL

 

[CTLesq]

PS: Ask a judge in Kentucky how he feels about going to "mass".

If I were you I would duck and get familiar with the term "papist".

CTL

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='CTLesq']
Then how is your position, taken to its logical extreme, that anything other than total release without any sanction is an infringement on a persnon's rights and therefore wrong?[/quote]

Clearly not, if the only way to avoid it is to attend religious services, then yes it is wrong in a secular country.

From your very first post when you started this thread:

Technically he says worship, but that clearly is unconsitutional, not only due to the religious aspect, but that if favors certain religions (or simply religion) as some religious groups do not have actual worship sessions such as mass.

Your entire focus was on religion, only now has it changed to freedom.

The focus was that the only way to retain your freedom was to attend religious services. The focus on freedom was in reference to my comparison of rehab and jail.

But you don't know what kind of rehad they are offering as its not mentioned in the article - do you? You are guessing.

If the religious organization wants to run a rehab that takes an equal amount of freedom away from the individual then they can choose that, but they are not attending a religious rehab program.

Why not? It is in additon to not in place of anything. It offers more choices. There is nothing restrictive about it.

I would have to go against my religious beliefs to take advantage of it.

And? A prosecutor could decide not to prosecute someone because they wore a blue shirt into court and that was his/her favorite color.

A prosecutor can drop a case, a prosecutor is not a judge. The judge cannot decide whether to prosecute, but they can decide the punishment.

All within the purview of a judge. There is nothing abusive about offering an additional program by the judge.

Wait, so judges can do whatever they want, regardless of the laws?

Of course - wouldn't want to see one of your beloved domestic social programs actually have to produce results to be funded would we?

Lets cut federal funding of college loans.

CTL

Wait, you think people don't benefit from federal college loans?

Though, besides, you can't have results without funding, you won't fund anything if you wait till a program with no money shows results.

 

[alonzomourning23]

[quote name='CTLesq']PS: Ask a judge in Kentucky how he feels about going to "mass".

If I were you I would duck and get familiar with the term "papist".

CTL[/QUOTE]

When you live in a overwhelmingly catholic area, attend catholic school, go to catholic services and ceremonies, you call every christian service "mass". Though, I think I know what papist means, but I've never heard the term. Besides, if I'm gonna have to duck a punch due to the guy hating catholics then I'm gonna end up with a lot of money, especially since the only printed evidence of my religion says catholic (ie. I could argue hate crime, and I fail to see why your situation wouldn't fall under that).

 

[atreyue]

Personally, I don't know a recovering drug addict who doesn't go to church, not to say they don't exist, but I doubt that is a coincidence. People need something to believe in since they obviously don't believe in themselves (if they are dumb enough to get 'hooked' on drugs, they obviously have good reason not to). They need to believe that someone/something believes they are worthwhile, because anyone whose lives they are involved in no longer have that belief.