- This topic has 9 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 21 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
(AP) A judge has been offering some drug and alcohol offenders the option of attending worship services instead of going to jail or rehab — a practice some say violates the separation of church and state.
District Judge Michael Caperton, 50, a devout Christian, said his goal is to “help people and their families.”
“I don’t think there’s a church-state issue, because it’s not mandatory and I say worship services instead of church,” he said.
Alternative sentencing is popular across the country–ordering vandals to repaint a graffiti-covered wall, for example. But legal experts said they didn’t know of any other judges who give the option of attending church.
Caperton has offered the option about 50 times to repeat drug and alcohol offenders. It is unclear what effect the sentence has had.
David Friedman, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, said the option raises “serious constitutional problems.”
“The judge is saying that those willing to go to worship services can avoid jail in the same way that those who decline to go cannot,” Friedman said. “That strays from government neutrality towards religion.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/05/31/national/main698727.shtml
This is a very dodgy plan. I don’t think it’s very fair at all and does erase the division between state and chruch somewhat. Opinions?
well, it doesnt say he makes them choose jail or a particular church/religion… so perhaps if they’re Muslim they can attend services at a mosque, if they’re Jewish they can go to a synagogue, etc… it’s not like he’s making them go to a Baptist church no matter what.
i think it’s a good plan. obviously, as many of you have probably gathered from my earlier posts, i consider myself to be a somewhat religious person. i’m not going around wearing a sandwichboard sign telling everyone they’re going to hell, but i have my beliefs. i believe America was founded on Christian principles, and it would be good to get back to at least some of those principles. i’m not saying we should become a religious country, i’m saying some of the principles of Christianity would be good for a country to follow. can’t hurt.
Nope, I don’t think that worship services should be an option. It should be jail time. If someone has done something so terribly wrong, then they need to sit locked up in a cinderblock room, where other people can keep an eye on them.
Nowadays, it seems that people in jail can pretty much do everything that everyone else OUTSIDE the cell can do. Finish high school by getting a GED, take college courses, go outside and have a game of basketball going, reading, etc. It almost makes me WANT to go to jail..lol J/K J/K.
If the criminal would like to attend worship services while in jail, I don’t see that as a problem either. My church pastor and a few people from the congregation go to the county jail every two weeks to hold a small service for the inmates.
So, why the need for the option of worship service, when a pastor or priest can come to you? There SHOULDN’T be the option. Or else everyone would choose to go to church instead of jail.
My vote is NO. Keep people who have done something wrong in a place that is designed for people who do wrong things. That’s what a jail is for. That’s what our tax money pays for.
I think the objection that most people have about church as an alternative to prison is that it sounds as if the criminal is getting off easy. Of course, there are some churches where attendance might seem like doing hard time, but that’s another issue.
The real issue here is the nature of the crime, the background and character of the criminal, and the opportunity for rehabilitation. At one time, the goal of prison was rehabilitation (at least for lesser crimes). I suspect that in many cases, prison actually hardens people and makes them more likely to commit future crimes.
If you can rehabilitate someone or correct their behavior to reduce the chances of recurrance, and do so outside the traditional prison system, I’m all for it. Of course, you couldn’t offer this for violent crimes or repeat offenders, but for someone who just made a bad choice, why not offer an alternative?
And if they do it again afterwards, send the posse out and lynch the mother ****ers.
Well as i have noted before, i’m not a church fan…but if this would only be offered to drug and alcohol offenders, then they should be given that option. Just like community service is offered to some, or certain classes…Well maybe that option would really help some of them more. Since it’s not like they killed someone and can do it again…It was a really minor crime. If it was being FORCED upon them, then i think it would affect that line separating church and state, but it’s not, it is just an option. So to me it sounds fairly good if it turns out to actually rehabilitate them rather than give them the chance to simply go get drunk or high again. And that is my opinion!
I agree with Gossipingrae. Worship shouldn’t be an option. Woreship is the option to use when you start heading down the wrong path, not once you find the trouble at the end of it.
Personally I think it’s flat out wrong for a judge to use his position to push people into going to chruch or an other act of worship.
I mean for one it’s clearly discrimination against Atheists and non-conventional religions for one, they would have to go to jail (or rehab) instead of what in my view is certainly an easier option, though I think it is entirely possible that the desire for reformation expressed by many religions would be more useful, the fact remains that church and state should remain seperate, and no government officials should use there position to push there own faith… that way lies madness.
I am somewhat undecided in this matter. I am a Christian, so obviously I think it is good that he would be getting exposed to church. However, I don’t think he should go to church if he is not willing to learn, if he is just going to get out of jail time.
colin wrote:I am somewhat undecided in this matter. I am a Christian, so obviously I think it is good that he would be getting exposed to church. However, I don’t think he should go to church if he is not willing to learn, if he is just going to get out of jail time.That’s what I said, Colin!!! or atleast I thought I did.. o.O Anyway, people are twisted and if they believe they can get out of prison time by “pretending” to seek help from the church they need even more help than originally believed. I’m not saying that this person may not experience what he will (would) be there for, but if the original thought is to get out of doing time, than he needs to be re-evaluated.Hey, folks can still get religious councelling and study and guidence in jail and rehab if that’s what they really want. The decision to go through religious councelling or something like that should be an optional, personal choice, not a get out of jail free card.
So, if they want it that badly, they can get it while in rehab or jail. All the better, what else do they have to do with their time, afterall?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.