Yeah, I don’t care… the argument that it’s inherently unconstitutional has already been explored. I’m expressing a parallel concern that actual criminals are getting the slap-wrist “punishment” of having to spend an hour per week being bored in a church (or, if they’re already churchgoers, just going about their normal routine) and suffering effectively no penalty at all for the misdeed for which they have been convicted. Is the judge supposed to be handing out meaningless punishments? Sounds like a waste of time and expense to me.
Just spend the time in church creeping out the other church-goers, without doing anyting overt.
Ok, so you must be opposed to probation too. They don’t even have to spend an hour a week being bored in church. So basically you get punished with imprisonment, or you get off scott free. And to keep the public happy, you make sure everyone does some time, even if they don’t deserve it. I can’t see how that could go wrong.:dubious:
Not as much fun as you might think. Kinda gets to you, after a while. Not the way they look at you, but the way they don’t look at you.
No, so everything that follows from this assumption of yours lacks basis.
Then why are all the “you must wear this outfit” stuff considered legal? And they always fall afoul of the unusual part of “cruel and unusual punishment.”
In fact, that’s what makes me think this would be constitutional. If you can abridge someone’s free speech rights by making them wear clothing with a certain message on it, why can’t you also abridge their freedom of religion? Both methods seem use making the punishment a choice to make it constitutional.
Cute. You know what the statement means. By your own logic, parole is not a punishment. If it is indeed a punishment, then explain how it is different. Why is one system that requires you to be at a certain place in a certain time good, while the other bad?
And, remember, you’ve already given up on using the unconstitutionality defense, as you said that is irrelevant to your argument.
In my opinion, if the speech does not have anything to do directly with their crime, then it should not be permitted. For instance there’s a stronger argument for being given the option of wearing a sandwich board saying “I’m a convicted bread thief” if that’s what you were convicted of, but not “I like the Teletubbies and my mama dresses me funny”.
Giving the “option” of attending religious services has nothing to do with the crime or rehabilitation, and as a matter of fact I cannot think of any reason to give the option, let alone one which would trump the 1st Amendment. Whereas the sandwich board, you could argue, at least promoted repentence and advances information, although one has to of course weigh that against free speech as well.
Although if the conviction were of, say, setting fire to a church, I’d consider the punishment morally just, not to mention hilarious, even though upon further consideration I would not want to enforce it due to setting a precedent.
Martingale burglary?
Earlier [TriPolar] said “probation”. Please pick a mistaken assumption and stick with it.
Other people are already arguing that issue. My additional voice would be redundant. It is not a matter of “giving up”.
Anyway, I’m curious what this judge would do if sentencing someone who was already known to be a church-goer, or someone who was a church-goer but was not known (to the judge) to be so. Before offering the church option, does the judge intend to establish if the convicted is church-going (and if he is, deny the option, as it would be meaningless), or just assume that the conviction is de facto proof of someone who is not church-going.
They don’t offer the “jail or fine” option to people who don’t return the proceeds of their crimes.
Why do you think being sentenced to a year of attending church isn’t punishment?
Can Pastafarians offer to simply eat a plate of spaghetti instead? That’s the kind of punishment I can get behind!
Well, church ladies ARE supposed to be the best cooks.
Many people, voluntarily and without any coercion at all, go to church on their own, and even regard it as a beneficial experience. Requiring church attendance is certainly not a punishment for them.
Already saw this on WWGHA! Here’s my reply:
In case no one knew the secret of life before, I’ll tell you: Stay out of jail! That’s it.
If I were in the situation of this choice, you’d be calling Locrian the Anti-theist, FATHER LOCRIAN! 
Can I choose to attend the Church of Satan?
What if it was the other way around? What if the judge said you are forbidden from going to church for a year?
I think I’ve come up with a brilliant plan.
In addition to this story, another has come out of Alabama about the crackdown on illegal immigrants and the negative effect it’s had on sweet potato farms.
What say they offer cancellation of deportation to anyone (without a felony record of course!) willing to go to church for a year? Everyone wins!
Even better.
If they catch illegal immigrants working at a sweet potato farm, they can punish them by making them work on a sweet potato farm.
Makes about as much sense.
Don’t think of it as buying your way out of jail. Think of it as serving your way out of a fine.