• 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?

OscarB63 said:
strawman? when have I said they shouldn't. I'm just saying that FOR THE CRIMINAL, it is a better option to go to church than to go to jail and get butt****ed by big bubba.

I'd much rather have someone violate my freedom of religion than to violate my rectum
Click to expand...

Apparently the closest you've ever been to a real jail is "Lockup" on MSNBC.

The "prison rape" thing is actually very rare. I don't know where that fallacy got it's roots, but it just isn't so. Many many people, even small in stature people, have done many years in prison without even having to fight not to be raped, much less be raped. Read about jail and prison....the living conditions are awful in jails and a little better in prison but the main thing is being away from your family. Not being raped. While rapes in prison do occur, rapes outside of prisons occur too and I don't see many people joking about a man being ass raped by Bubba in a dark ally.

So use REAL problems with jail in defending someone going to church instead, but don't use fallacies.
 
dontworrybehappy said:
Apparently the closest you've ever been to a real jail is "Lockup" on MSNBC.

The "prison rape" thing is actually very rare. I don't know where that fallacy got it's roots, but it just isn't so. Many many people, even small in stature people, have done many years in prison without even having to fight not to be raped, much less be raped. Read about jail and prison....the living conditions are awful in jails and a little better in prison but the main thing is being away from your family. Not being raped. While rapes in prison do occur, rapes outside of prisons occur too and I don't see many people joking about a man being ass raped by Bubba in a dark ally.

So use REAL problems with jail in defending someone going to church instead, but don't use fallacies.
Click to expand...

jeez, just jeez.
 
OscarB63 said:
convicts are denied #2: keep and bear arms

and

convicts are denied #4: unreasonable search and seizure
Click to expand...

Limited rights =/= total absence though, which I think was what the person replying thought was implied.

And those are not absolute - sure in prison or jail they are, but outside of that the legal realm is a complex web.
 
Travelsonic said:
Limited rights =/= total absence though, which I think was what the person replying thought was implied.

And those are not absolute - sure in prison or jail they are, but outside of that the legal realm is a complex web.
Click to expand...

au contraire

while in prison/jail the right to bear arms is totally revoked, even after release, in most places, ex-felons are not allowed to own firearms

and while in prison/jail there is absolutely no expectation of privacy or protection from search and seizure, the guards can toss your cell at anytime for any (or no) reason.

and once someone is released, they are no longer a convict, they are an ex-convict so the same rules don't apply.
 
Ikari said:
Worthless posts can be made better by reading the thread and knowing what we are talking about. It's not like this was all secret, there's a few pages of arguments written and waiting for you to read and catch yourself up.
Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the Constitution, a subject mentioned here frequently, and how it is being violated?
 
Sheik Yerbuti said:
What difference does it make? Since when are convicts guaranteed Constitutional rights? It's a bad idea because it's too lenient, but I don't view this as a Constitutional issue.
Click to expand...

How can you say it's a bad idea before its been given a fair shot?

Learning that "Thou shalt not steal", for example, might not be such a bad thing.
 
Grant said:
How can you say it's a bad idea before its been given a fair shot?

Learning that "Thou shalt not steal", for example, might not be such a bad thing.
Click to expand...

It has been tried before. The most recent example being 2005 in KY. It isn't like this is a new concept. There is also no evidence anywhere that such a requirement actually helps people in any way.
 
Thunder said:
it violates the Establishment Clause.
Click to expand...

I think you are unclear as to the meaning of "establishment" here, as well as are several other posters.

"Establishment" does not mean sending offenders to Church. anymore than having religious services in prisons violates any Constitutional amendments.

No arm of the government is establishing any religion here, and if they are then they would be in violation of the Constitution and we can all protest.
 
roguenuke said:
It has been tried before. The most recent example being 2005 in KY. It isn't like this is a new concept. There is also no evidence anywhere that such a requirement actually helps people in any way.
Click to expand...

What was the recidivism rate? Does anyone know? Is this program based on the one in Kentucky or have their been changes made?
 
Grant said:
I think you are unclear as to the meaning of "establishment" here, as well as are several other posters.

"Establishment" does not mean sending offenders to Church. anymore than having religious services in prisons violates any Constitutional amendments.

No arm of the government is establishing any religion here, and if they are then they would be in violation of the Constitution and we can all protest.
Click to expand...

You are apparently unfamiliar with how several US courts have interpreted the Establishment Clause to include very similar situations as this one. And at the end of the day, it is the courts that will determine whether this is Constitutional or not. Going on earlier cases similar to this one, it appears that the courts definitely believe that such things violate the Establishment Clause.
 
Thunder said:
that argument could also be used for legalizing crack-cocaine & execution by gang-rape.
Click to expand...

But no one here is making that argument.

You also seem unclear of the meaning of a "straw man argument' as well as the word "establishment".
 
Grant said:
But no one here is making that argument.

You also seem unclear of the meaning of a "straw man argument'
Click to expand...

that's his favorite debate tactic. I've lost count of the number of times I've thought "WTF??? I never said that"
 
Grant said:
What was the recidivism rate? Does anyone know? Is this program based on the one in Kentucky or have their been changes made?
Click to expand...

I can only find any information on this from around 2005 and it states that he made this offer to about 50 people with alcohol/drug related problems. No information at all on the recidivism rate.

From the looks of it, the two are similar.

Judge's Offer: Church Or Jail - CBS News
 
roguenuke said:
I can only find any information on this from around 2005 and it states that he made this offer to about 50 people with alcohol/drug related problems. No information at all on the recidivism rate.

From the looks of it, the two are similar.

Judge's Offer: Church Or Jail - CBS News
Click to expand...

I still think, regardless of the criminal's religious status, it is a damn good deal for any criminal and a very bad freaking idea for that reason.
 
OscarB63 said:
I still think, regardless of the criminal's religious status, it is a damn good deal for any criminal and a very bad freaking idea for that reason.
Click to expand...

Just because the option is a good deal for any criminal and a bad idea overall does not mean that it isn't unconstitutional. In fact, it isn't just about comparing the deal for with each option in the deal. It is also about comparing the deal given based on a person's religious beliefs. A person who already goes to church, especially a church within this program every Sunday is getting a better deal, no matter how you look at it, than someone who doesn't attend church regularly, especially if the person doesn't attend church because they do not hold religious beliefs that adhere to an established church or one in that area or beliefs that greatly conflict with the churches in that area. That is discrimination based on religion and is held to strict scrutiny under the 14th Amendment.
 
roguenuke said:
You are apparently unfamiliar with how several US courts have interpreted the Establishment Clause to include very similar situations as this one. And at the end of the day, it is the courts that will determine whether this is Constitutional or not. Going on earlier cases similar to this one, it appears that the courts definitely believe that such things violate the Establishment Clause.
Click to expand...

It seems that sending juvenile offenders to Church each Sunday for a year, as an option for the guilty party, has now become the establishment of a religion.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
Click to expand...
 
Grant said:
It seems that sending juvenile offenders to Church each Sunday for a year, as an option for the guilty party, has now become the establishment of a religion.
Click to expand...

It certainly could be if you are not providing a very similar option that would encompass every possible set of general beliefs out there, including a total lack of beliefs.
 
roguenuke said:
Just because the option is a good deal for any criminal and a bad idea overall does not mean that it isn't unconstitutional. In fact, it isn't just about comparing the deal for with each option in the deal. It is also about comparing the deal given based on a person's religious beliefs. A person who already goes to church, especially a church within this program every Sunday is getting a better deal, no matter how you look at it, than someone who doesn't attend church regularly, especially if the person doesn't attend church because they do not hold religious beliefs that adhere to an established church or one in that area or beliefs that greatly conflict with the churches in that area. That is discrimination based on religion and is held to strict scrutiny under the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

because it is such a bad idea in general, the fact that it may or may not be unconstitutional is irrelevent. Instead of arguing over the constitutionality, argue over the stupidity.
 
Grant said:
It seems that sending juvenile offenders to Church each Sunday for a year, as an option for the guilty party, has now become the establishment of a religion.
Click to expand...

its amazing how you fail to understand this relatively simple statement:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
 
Thunder said:
its amazing how you fail to understand this relatively simple statement:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Click to expand...

I think it is basically that simple...
 
roguenuke said:
Just because the option is a good deal for any criminal and a bad idea overall does not mean that it isn't unconstitutional. In fact, it isn't just about comparing the deal for with each option in the deal. It is also about comparing the deal given based on a person's religious beliefs. A person who already goes to church, especially a church within this program every Sunday is getting a better deal, no matter how you look at it, than someone who doesn't attend church regularly, especially if the person doesn't attend church because they do not hold religious beliefs that adhere to an established church or one in that area or beliefs that greatly conflict with the churches in that area. That is discrimination based on religion and is held to strict scrutiny under the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

You seem to believe that this option is carved in stone and there is no judicial alternatives.

It is an option that might or might not be exercised and is designed for first time offenders. Changing the environment just one day a week might not be such a bad idea for some young people. If the United States is going to fail it will more likely be the mountains of debt, rather than allowing a defendant to chose Church for each Sunday throughout the year.

Serve Time In Jail...Or In Church? | WKRG
 
Thunder said:
its amazing how you fail to understand this relatively simple statement:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Click to expand...

And which religion is being established here??? Just explain that and the problem is solved. In fact, as I understand it , Congress is not even involved in this case!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom