Making someone register on a public hate-list for a crime he committed 30 years ago as a teen is clearly unconstitutional too, but don't see anyone standing up for the rights of the person in this case. Why the selective enforcement of the constitution?
Lets suppose that the judge offered jail or volunteering at a local abortion clinic as possible sentences. I wonder if people would still consider it a "voluntary" choice that is perfectly reasonable. Its easy to justify abuse that happens to someone else until you fight yourself on the receiving end of the precedent you set.
Well I would sentence him to feed the hungry at a soup kitchen, but once you step inside there, you instantly become homeless.
Yeah...that's how f'n stupid some of you sound with this "going to church is forcing religion on him" crap.
hmmm..let's see now.
you can either serve time in jail for one year, or you can be FREE for a year to play, drink, party, have fun, work, be lazy.....but you have to go to church every Sunday.
how exactly does the 2nd option hold someone accountable for their crime?
what ever happened to wanting to be tough on crime?
what ever happened to having zero tolerance for crime?
does being tough on crime and having zero tolerance for crime, and "you do the crime you do the time" get thrown out the door when church is an option??????
wtf is with all the hypocricy.
Last edited by Thunder; 09-27-11 at 04:26 PM.
That's another story altogether. If all their "sentence" requires is an hour or two in church a week, it's definitely too weak of a punishment.Originally Posted by Thunder
My argument goes with the "if you make him step inside a church, you're forcing religion upon him" bullcrap.