• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Serve Time In Jail...Or In Church?

roguenuke said:
This is so messed up.

As others have pointed out, this means that non-violent offenders who already attend church regularly, are basically getting off scottfree because they already perform the "punishment" every week anyway. It would be like offering me a choice between jail or keeping my house clean, which I do every day anyway.

On the flip side of this, some may end up being cruelly punished through ridicule for holding their personal religious beliefs that clash with the beliefs of most/all churches in the area. How many different denominations are in the area? How far out can a person go to practice their beliefs? Does it have to be an established church/religion, or can it be one that is more of a religious meeting group? And the Sheriff specifically said "Sunday" attendance, but what about those religions that meet on other days of the week? Can a person switch churches if they are feeling ridiculed? Who gets to decide if someone is being treated cruelly by the church or not for maintaining their personal beliefs instead of accepting the church's beliefs?
Click to expand...
By golly...Im betting if you were the person being given that choice you could even ask those questions and get an answer. Or not. On your principles should you ever be in that situation you should go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go and do not collect your $200.00.

It MAY be lost on folks or missed that not only is this a less punitive offering it also saves the taxpayers from having to take care of them while they are sitting in the jail.
 
VanceMack said:
Indeed...please continue. Which part of "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" indicates an individual could not or even should not be given such a choice during sentencing? Especially what with this being a state court and not a federal court, but even in the instance of a federal court, where is the abridgement of individual rights?
Click to expand...


all states must comply with the constitution. in this instance, it's a practical abridgement of the individual's rights, not a literal abridgement. if a judge is going to provide a choice, it should not involve religion. no one in their right mind would choose jail over church, essentially forcing that person to attend church whether they want to or not. could the person attend ANY church, such as wiccan services?
 
Whether or not a convicted criminal is "ridiculed" doesn't place high on my give-a-damn-o-meter. Having said that, while church people tend to be judgmental as all hell, I doubt they would openly berate him or collectively ostracize him. I imagine a bunch of them might have questions, and a few of the more zealous attendees might want to spend some extra time, but that's probably about it.

We're talking about a bunch of people who learn "judge not, lest ye be judged".
 
Wiggen said:
Well, they do recognize at least part of the Constitution - the Second amendment - down in Dixie. It's the first and the fourteenth they have real problems with.

By the way, I'd like to be your friend but I have no idea how to respond.:2razz:
Click to expand...
Great, friend...maybe YOU can explain how this is in violation of the first amendment!
"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."

Go!
 
VanceMack said:
By golly...Im betting if you were the person being given that choice you could even ask those questions and get an answer. Or not. On your principles should you ever be in that situation you should go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go and do not collect your $200.00.

It MAY be lost on folks or missed that not only is this a less punitive offering it also saves the taxpayers from having to take care of them while they are sitting in the jail.
Click to expand...
so would community service.
 
liblady said:
all states must comply with the constitution. in this instance, it's a practical abridgement of the individual's rights, not a literal abridgement. if a judge is going to provide a choice, it should not involve religion. no one in their right mind would choose jail over church, essentially forcing that person to attend church whether they want to or not. could the person attend ANY church, such as wiccan services?
Click to expand...

I believe it states "church of their choice", so if there is a wiccan "church" in the area they could attend services there...as long as the wiccan church would have them.
 
It still gives people who attend church regularly an allowance of 1 misdemeanor per year (charge dismissed) essentially without any ramifications whatsoever. They get off scott free.. no skin off from their backs

that is preferential treatment - one category or class of the population can just carry on as always going to church every sunday, and its like nothing ever happened.. meanwhile everyone else does have to face consequences and ramifications for the same actions.


edit: and the "choice" is lopsided when only one option allows for dismissal of charges.
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
It still gives people who attend church regularly an allowance of 1 misdemeanor per year (charge dismissed) essentially without any ramifications whatsoever. They get off scott free.. no skin off from their backs

that is preferential treatment - one category or class of the population can just carry on as always going to church every sunday, and its like nothing ever happened.. meanwhile everyone else does have to face consequences and ramifications for the same actions.


edit: and the "choice" is lopsided when only one option allows for dismissal of charges.
Click to expand...

I would wager that the incidents of criminal behavior among those who attend church every sunday is much, much lower than it is among those who do not. your objection on such grounds is flimsy at best.
 
liblady said:
all states must comply with the constitution. in this instance, it's a practical abridgement of the individual's rights, not a literal abridgement. if a judge is going to provide a choice, it should not involve religion. no one in their right mind would choose jail over church, essentially forcing that person to attend church whether they want to or not. could the person attend ANY church, such as wiccan services?
Click to expand...
You are assuming the individual couldnt choose Wicca, a Muslim faith, a purely non-denominational gathering or anything else. The simple fact of the matter is he IS giving something they previously wouldnt have had...a CHOICE. There is NO forcing of a mandated state religion...the only POSSIBLE thing you could claim as a violation to the constitution. You keep saying NO ONE would choose jail over religion. yet...you ignore the fact that you actually HAVE A CHOICE. Take away the choice and hyou have nothing but jail. NICE!!! Way to chop off hyour nose. THAT will show your face who is boss.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
And to the poster that said something stupid about how we would not support it if the choice was go to a mosque or jail.....well....I can't speak for everyone but I would fully support the choice. As long as its a free will choice, if they want to go to a mosque rather than jail it's fine with me. WTF do I care?
Click to expand...

Going to a mosque would be far worse than going to jail.
 
VanceMack said:
By golly...Im betting if you were the person being given that choice you could even ask those questions and get an answer. Or not. On your principles should you ever be in that situation you should go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go and do not collect your $200.00.

It MAY be lost on folks or missed that not only is this a less punitive offering it also saves the taxpayers from having to take care of them while they are sitting in the jail.
Click to expand...

I'd go to jail. I'd also have good grounds to fight that someone in a similar situation to me but with different religious beliefs was basically offered a less severe punishment because of their religious beliefs alone. That is discrimination. The law would then be struck down somewhere within our judicial system since it is religious discrimination and violates the 1st and 14th Amendments. It would cost them a lot more in legal battles than it would ever have cost to just offer a general community service program.

Don't feel like actually debating me on the issues I brought up then, huh?
 
OscarB63 said:
I would wager that the incidents of criminal behavior among those who attend church every sunday is much, much lower than it is among those who do not. your objection on such grounds is flimsy at best.
Click to expand...

church going does not exempt one from crime, but apparently in this case, just punishment.

There are plenty of church going people who do and have committed crimes (especially misdemeanors). Even if this number were just 1, that is too many to allow for the preferential treatment
 
Last edited:
VanceMack said:
You are assuming the individual couldnt choose Wicca, a Muslim faith, a purely non-denominational gathering or anything else. The simple fact of the matter is he IS giving something they previously wouldnt have had...a CHOICE. There is NO forcing of a mandated state religion...the only POSSIBLE thing you could claim as a violation to the constitution. You keep saying NO ONE would choose jail over religion. yet...you ignore the fact that you actually HAVE A CHOICE. Take away the choice and hyou have nothing but jail. NICE!!! Way to chop off hyour nose. THAT will show your face who is boss.
Click to expand...

You are assuming those options are available. Again, what churches are in the area? Who gets to approve your choice of church attendance? How close does the church have to be?
 
liblady said:
[/B]so would community service.
Click to expand...
I would bet they also use that as a component of sentencing. They probably also mandate the occasional substance abuse treatment program. Id be willing to bet they even court order anger management classes, smoking cessation classes, and parenting classes. But because religion is mentioned...THIS we must become fixated upon.

Please...should the unfortunate occasion ever occur whereby you are set before this judges court...choose option A. I hear the Kale and Pepper steak on friday is to die for.
 
liblady said:
that's ridiculous. i attend church and am far from anti-religious. i do not, however, appreciate a judge giving what is essentially a non-choice as a sentence that involves going to church. that's like saying to a man......do you want $500 dollars, or do you want to pay me $500?
Click to expand...

It's nothin like that. Going to church would be far worse for some people.
 
marduc said:
church going does not exempt one from crime, but apparently in this case, just punishment.
Click to expand...

and this is relevent to your objection in what way?
 
OscarB63 said:
I would wager that the incidents of criminal behavior among those who attend church every sunday is much, much lower than it is among those who do not. your objection on such grounds is flimsy at best.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter how low those incidents are, as long as at least one person would be getting special treatment just due to their religious views, it is religious discrimination. I'm sure there are plenty of regular church goers who commit plenty of non-violent crimes.
 
roguenuke said:
You are assuming those options are available. Again, what churches are in the area? Who gets to approve your choice of church attendance? How close does the church have to be?
Click to expand...
All really good questions...ask the judge when you see him. Or better yet...stand by your principles and tell him you want the cell next to Liblady. You can clang your c ups on the bars together and sing..."Nobody knows...da trouble I seen...nobody knows but Jes..."

Oh...wait...thats a religious song...
 
Okay, how about making church-going folk who commit crimes be required to perform additional services for their church. Mentor program, meals on wheels, day care, maintenance/upkeep. Essentially community service for the cross.
 
Wiggen said:
Well, they do recognize at least part of the Constitution - the Second amendment - down in Dixie. It's the first and the fourteenth they have real problems with.

By the way, I'd like to be your friend but I have no idea how to respond.:2razz:
Click to expand...

We have no problem with the 1st Amendmant. The Tea Party rallies originated here. Also, everybody here gets due process. So please take your asinine retarded P.O.S. statements to a place where they give a damn about what you say.
 
VanceMack said:
All really good questions...ask the judge when you see him. Or better yet...stand by your principles and tell him you want the cell next to Liblady. You can clang your c ups on the bars together and sing..."Nobody knows...da trouble I seen...nobody knows but Jes..."

Oh...wait...thats a religious song...
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure I would a) not be committing a crime to warrant being in this position to begin with, but certainly b) not going to be in this area to even have the chance of going up in front of any judge in that area.

But keep trying to divert the topic. It is making our case for us that you have little argument for your position.
 
roguenuke said:
I'd go to jail. I'd also have good grounds to fight that someone in a similar situation to me but with different religious beliefs was basically offered a less severe punishment because of their religious beliefs alone. That is discrimination. The law would then be struck down somewhere within our judicial system since it is religious discrimination and violates the 1st and 14th Amendments. It would cost them a lot more in legal battles than it would ever have cost to just offer a general community service program.

Don't feel like actually debating me on the issues I brought up then, huh?[/QUOTE]You read a two line sentence in a two paragraph article and pretend to know if everyone is offered the sentence...if there are or arent local churches of multiple denomination, or what the travel restrictions are? And Im supposed to debate that? Heres the thing...Im willing to bet they have a lot more sentencing options for diffent people other than go to jail or go meet with Pastor John at the Antioch baptist church on 12th street. You know little if anything about the judge, the community, their typical sentencing...but because religion is involved you pretend you 'know' how this is a violation of the constitution.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom