There’s a story in the news that teenager Tyler Alred, convicted of manslaughter, has been sentenced by a judge to attend church.
I was wondering if sentencing people to church attendance has precedent in the past, and how far back such sentences might go in American history.
That judge does realise that ANY church is just a building and isn’t really inhabited by the Holy Spirit, doesn’t he?
I wonder if this avoids legal issues because Alred’s lawyers agreed to it. I know I’d want my lawyers to agree to something like this if it allowed to me stay free. At least free except Sunday morning.
Unlikely, the majority of Americans do believe in stuff like Holy Spirits, etc.
for a small fee …ahem sorry… tithe… the church of drachillix is always seeking new converts.
WTF is it with people linking to Google results rather than the actual thing! :mad: This ought to be made a bannable offense.
WRT the story, surely this must be unconstitutional.
I am not sure you can really force belief. Being an atheist I very much doubt being sentenced to attend church would have any effect on me. Of course given the choice between prison or having to attend church I would pick church any day.
I wonder what the nitty gritty rules on this are. Is he required to attend one specific congregation or a congregation of one specific tradition, or is he allowed to switch to a different denomination or even a different religion (e.g. attend an Islamic mosque every week instead)?
Coerced religious attendance has a very bad reputation in the US. The Virginia constitution specifically forbids it.
Interestingly enough, a neo-pagan group, the Reformed Druids of North America was founded at a private college because the school required students to attend a certain number of religious services, but didn’t specify what religion it had to be. A bunch of students got together and decided to form their own religion! The college administration was clearly irked. To pass them on the requirement went against their intent that the students should be influenced by a mainstream path where they would be under a “good influence” (not a bunch of college students getting drunk in a stone circle), and failing them would mean essentially that they are intolerant of religious diversity.
I’m not sure such sentence alternatives, which can be declined by the felon, are necessarily unconstitutional. After all, he could have declined that offering and spent more time incarcerated, in a secular setting.
Me, I’d jump for it and make sure to get to my local Unitarian-Universalist congregation a lot more regularly. Lots of atheists in our congregation.
Nm
Well I am not a registered atheist 
I am C of E and I don’t believe I ever had my membership revoked.
Edit: and my reply makes no sense now.
Jail or church? I am as card carrying atheist as they come, and I would take church over jail in a heartbeat.
Then promptly appeal my sentence.
I think the founding fathers would collectively weep at even the hint of an idea that 200+ years later someone was pondering freedom or religion.
But many of those do not believe that the Holy Spirit resides in specific marked spaces. Or at least they’re not supposed to by their Church’s teachings. And yes, I realize that they’re also supposed to believe other things they don’t believe, but I still wanted to point it out.
It is a dumb sentence. Only the convicted party has standing to challenge its constitutionality (and who knows if he will). But the risk of such potential challenges (along with the extra costs to the government and delays of any such appeal) associated with this sentence is so patent that one must question the judge’s, well, judgment.
Let’s say you (as in the teenager Tyler Alred) agree to a sentence such as this. Can you then challenge its constitutionality (as suggested by drachillix), or are you bound by the agreement? And if the challenge is allowed and is successful, are you then off the hook, or are you then subject to the original penalty of prison or jail?
Past discussion on the subject – and, an attempted, at least, precedent.
I expect that if you chose that the judge would decide it didn’t count and just toss you in prison to make an example of you.
Both families agreed to it. The other family being the one with the dead son. The case involved vehicular manslaughter. The judge acknowledged the sentence was probably unconstitutional. An ACLU spokesman mentioned that they would look into a challenge but the issue was one of standing since the parties agreed. He felt that it was also improper for the judge to go against his sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.
shrugs If both sides agreed to it, meh. I gotta give props to the dead son’s family – I’d be wanting his head on a spike.
At any rate it certainly won’t hurt him. Saves the state a pretty penny, too.
Interestingly back in my paralegal days I saw several defense attorneys tell their (recently-charged-but-yet-to-go-to-trial) clients to get their ass in church on Sundays to help bulk up their “I made a mistake and I’m trying to live right now” defense in court.
But you ought not EVER to be compelled to attend a church of the court’s choice, or any other church, for that matter.
That is just completely bad in many ways. 
Also, I thought there was this good separation of church and state thing.