Church or Jail?

Post Reply New Topic

In Bay Minette, Alabama, non-violent misdemeanor offenders will be given a choice between jail time and a fine or attending the church of their choice every Sunday for a year under what they're calling "Operation Restore Our Community." The offenders would be required to check in with a pastor of a participating church and a police officer weekly.

http://www2.wkrg.com/news/2011/sep/22/serve-time-jailor-church-ar-2450720/

Needless to say, podunk Police Chief Mike Rowland is no Constitutional scholar.

Here are some of its many problems from a Constitutional and civil-rights perspective:

• It privileges organized Christianity, which traditionally holds its sabbath on Sundays. Judaism's sabbath is sundown Friday to sundown Saturday, and Islam's sabbath is Friday. This doesn't even touch on religions and worldviews that don't use the concept of sabbath day.
• Atheists, agnostics, people who are spiritual but not participant in organized religion, neo-pagans and Wiccans, et al. are given inferior legal status, having to opt for either jail or observing a religion they do not believe in. Would they recognize a coven of Wiccans as acceptable?
• There is no secular alternative besides jail and a fine.

The courts should deal with this abomination forthwith. It is a clear violation of the first Amendment.

ruveyn

I think it's well intentioned but I don't know about the legality of it either if it is indeed as you described. I suspect it might be a little different, like I doubt they can only attend services on Sunday. Moving away from imprisonment and fines seems like a good move to me although this is only for misdemeanors and not too many people actually go to jail over those.

I wonder if it would violate the First Amendment if the judge sentenced the kids to 100 hours of community service, and the most willing and able institution just happened to be a church, which also just happened to run a "Meals on Wheels" program or a shelter for the homeless.

And even if it were a violation, would it be more important to uphold the strictest interpretation of the Constitution, or to provide another set of helping hands to the community?

I mean, it's not as if the juveniles were not being presented with a choice - they can still opt for jail instead of a religious institution.

But it's not about a Meals on Wheels program that happens to be run by a church. The option is explicitly about attending church services.

Yes, kid; I read the article. That's why I offered an alternative, rather than help beat this "Separation of Church and State" horse to death.

The article linked mentions Sundays specifically, but I wouldn't know the particulars. Anyway how is it well intentioned? Obviously the judge and police chief believe religion would help these people, presumably because they share that religious tradition. They may feel that, as Christians, it is their duty to proselytize to these offenders, believing that "salvation through Jesus Christ" or some such nonsense would save them from an otherwise inevitable life of crime. The fact is they're using the apparatus of the state, through the threat of punishment, to promote a participating set of churches; most people would see attending church once a week much less onerous than jail time and a fine although it does not respect their Constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom. Basically, the conscientiously nonreligious would be punished beyond peers convicted of equal crimes solely for their choice of religious belief/association. This is exactly the sort of thing that is insidious to all Americans' freedom of religion/conscience. Even if you're an evangelical Christian, you should reject this encroachment upon even your religious liberty, for if the principle of religious liberty is attacked for some, the same principle that protects your freedom has also been forgotten.

This Separation which you won't beat to death is what keeps the U.S. from turning into a place like Spain during the time of the Holy Inquisition. Don't trivialize this important principle. Religion sucks lemons and must be kept away from public policy and government.

ruveyn

Community service is a pretty standard condition of parole/probation, but what they're doing in Bay Minette, Alabama, is different. Many charities are directly or indirectly associated with religious organizations, but this does not make the charity in itself incompatible with secular service. Many charities associated with religious organizations receive state and federal funds, but there are certain conditions associated with this: for example, that they cannot discriminate in hiring based on religion and must not proselytize as part of the charitable mission. The authorities here want to use the threat of legal punishment to make convicts attend weekly religious services.

That is involuntary servitude. The thirteen amendment does permit involuntary servitude if it is part of punishment for crimes in which the party has been convicted. So maybe a First Amendment argument might not work here.

ruveyn

I think it's well intentioned in the sense that it moves away from jail time and fines for non-violent offenses in favor of some sort of rehabilitation. I think it could be good alternative if it respected everybody's religious beliefs or non-beliefs. I wonder if it's specifically mandating that they just attend the religious services or if they also have to participate in some sort of community service through the church.

What if they extended the choice of Sabbaths.
(Call it attending one meeting of your choice during the week.)
and seculars could attend a bird-watching club, a humanist society, a chapter of Greenpeace
or go to story hour at the library once a week.
would that be constitutional?

Arrogant because it prioritises Christianity as others have mentioned, and most likely unconstitutional under the Church & State clause, and foolish because of the above.

I have no problem with diversion programs that send offenders through programs as an alternative to jail--usually first time offenders who have committed non-violent summary conviction offenses.

I don't even have a problem with a probation officer allowing for religious attendance forming part of the diversion program.

But I have a huge problem when attendance at religious services is the only component of the diversion program. (Leaving aside the Christian focus of this particular proposal).

For some offenders, attendance at AA or Narcotics Anonymous would be more beneficial. For others, attendance at school is more beneficial. For others it would be community service. But a one-size-fits-all approach? No way.

Who exactly in that jurisdiction is going to complain about it, though? Are atheists/secularists really that much more likely to commit crimes? Is there really any truth to that whole atheists-eat-babies cliche? lol

In all seriousness, it's really the will of the people that guides legal actions in small places like that. If it is known that a community is predominantly Christian or non-religious believers, they aren't likely to have much of a problem complying with the sentence.

The only secularist option I can possibly think of is some kind of group counseling with a therapist. Which you'd only really get in, um...jail.

Maybe just have the guy report to jail once a week? That's only assuming that a secular "chaplain equivalent" couldn't be provided or that there weren't enough people to have a viable group meeting. I just don't see it as something that would ever really become a problem. Even a large number of gang members profess faith in Christ. I'd think those who aren't actively spiritual are just apathetic and wouldn't be offended going to church anyway, even if they didn't share the beliefs. This isn't unusual in small communities.

Since the defendant is given a choice it does not violate separation of church and state, though more flexibility needs to be given to let people choose other religions and go to weekday Bible studies or other church services that fit them better. For example, I usually don't get much from Sunday services because it's early and it exceeds my attention span.