My old man was in AA, and he totally hated that “attend AA meetings” thing, as did many of his fellows. (Though, oddly, he called going to an AA meeting “church”). People sent there simply didn’t fit in, nobody wanted to sponsor them, or have anything to do with them. Didn’t do them any good, sure didn’t do AA any good.
Wait. . .you mean conversion from Judaism to Christianity could be a mitigating factor?
No. that the convicted murderer has “come to Jesus” and seen the error of his prior ways.
OK. I thought “conversion” implied swapping one religion for another.
Not to pick on you but this concept “30 days or 30 dollars” in varying amounts has a LONG history in the United States. Maybe as much as 200 years. The idea that the two penalties are equal is longstanding. Sometimes it’s viewed as ‘The penalty is $XX fine. If you can’t pay it’s XX days in the hoosegow. State your intentions, you criminal varmint!’
As for Astorian’s “You can go to an approved house of worship for a year” thing…
Any system that has houses of worship being ‘approved’ by the government is skirting, and likely over, the concept of government endorsement of one religion over others. There’s simply no way to ‘approve’ one and leave others out that doesn’t create that problem.
Does anyone know how a local church becomes “qualified” to accept people under the program? is it just being in the geographical bounds? Does the church have to be approved by the judge or probation officer? Considering freedom of religion in this country, I could see a long protracted battle if someone opened up a local satellite campus for a big-city mosque (or synagogue, or temple, or any other religious establishment where there are meetings open to the public) and asked to be allowed to accept offenders under the program, but got denied.
I’d still have a problem with that, because then it would get those who already go to church every Sunday out of potato peeling, bedpan cleaning and trash picking duty. Now if your plan was substituted with: your choice of house of worship (including going down to the beach and praying to the sand crabs, if that’s your thing), then peachy.
This is a pander to the Christian community. And when it is shot down on a constitutional basis, I predict they’ll start complaining about the ubiquitous persecution they claim to be subject to.
I’ve heard of conversion to Christianity as a factor in clemency proceedings (Mike Huckabee appears to have commuted the sentences of pretty much every death row inmate who found Jeebus), but not as a factor in sentencing.
That’s fine:
“Okay, I’ll take the house of worship option. Since I’m Jewish, and there are no synagogues within a reasonable distance, I guess you’ll just have to suspend my sentence.”
There is the heart of the hypocrisy concerning our ‘seperation of church and state’. We excoriate a judge for giving a convict a choice between the mild punishment of jail or the arduous tortue of attending church because it is unconstitutional, yet at the same the government has taken the authority to determine what is a valid church for tax purposes, qualifying for government programs, and in respect to exceptions in laws for religious purposes. So there is no seperation at all.
I would commend the judge for his actions if he did not offer the easy out of going to jail.
Yeah, sure. Given how this is a blatant attempt to force religion on people by legal force don’t assume that not committing crimes would keep you out of it. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if such a law was allowed to see a sudden “crime wave” among people belonging to unpopular religions. After all surely they’ll be better people after being exposed to the “right” religion, and if that means finding some excuse to accuse them of a crime it’s all for a good cause.
I’d be all for eliminating the tax exemption; it amounts to government funding of religion.
I’d go for the church. They generally smell nice and the music’s okay, I can live with it. I’d support the drive to have such sentencing abolished as unconstitutional too, and would laugh at anyone punished for it applying it.
No, I’d offer them a choice: $20 000 fines or 20 000 church attendences.
My concern is with spending time in a closed environment with sex offenders and the possibility of forced sodomy.
I’d pick prison.
What happens if a regular church-goer is convicted of a crime? Can a judge decide that religion wasn’t working for him and give him a choice of going to jail or attending some weekly atheist meeting? (I don’t know what a weekly atheist meeting would be but I suppose something could be set up.)
Apparently you also have to prove you were paying attention, because forced conversion doesn’t work too well if they just let you sleep through it. Fortunately, this is also easy for an atheist:
“Does God exist? Yes/No
Are you sure? Yes/No”
You’re not forced to go to church upon being convicted; you’re merely given the opportunity to do so in lieu of other punishments. What’s the problem here? Or is this simply a case of Dopers going ballistic at the mere mention of Christianity?
:rolleyes: That was already answered in the OP:
This is the same thing that I thought of. I can’t see the difference.
The problem is that its not really an option compare with the other two choices. I’m a Christian, but if I was given the choice of 30 days in jail, a $3000 fine, or 30 sessions at a Temple, well where’s my yarmulke?
It tends to lead me to violate my religious convictions because the other two options are exponentially worse. IMHO that runs afoul of the first amendment.
IANAL, but churches are not tax exempt because they are a religion. They are tax exempt because they are non-profits. There are plenty of secular non-profits, and a church that did not meet the requirements for a non-profit could still be church but would have to pay normal taxes.
So you would be ok with the choice of fine, jail, or attending a mosque for a year, keeping in mind that your staying out of jail depends on convincing the imam that you have become a good Muslim.
And the choice becomes less free when if you happen to be living pay check to pay check and going to jail could mean losing your house, your job, and your kids.
I could see a program to allow counseling and/or community participation that including both religious and secular programs passing a Constitutional test, but not this.
Thank you for bringing to my attention something I read before I responded to the thread. As, apparently, you’re pining for a response to that, I’ll humor you.
Option number one is imprisonment or a fine. Option number two is imprisonment, a fine or going to church for a year. You’re arguing that option number two is fundamentally worse than option number one because option number two makes one choose between going to church, imprisonment and/or a fine, which you figure to be worse, whereas option number one is simply a choice between imprisonment and a fine. How can more allotted choices be worse than fewer allotted choices?