Precedent for sending people to church in American law?

[Johanna]

@Celyn

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.

Put yourself back in ancient Rome. You’re a Christian convict who can either worship Pagan-style at the temple of Jupiter where the judge tells you to go, or it’s to the lions with you. Your choice.

Exact same deal. (Except for the lions.)

[Flyer]

@Celyn

Also, I thought there was this good separation of church and state thing.

Tell that to the Congressional chaplains.

[John_Mace]

@robert_columbia

Coerced religious attendance has a very bad reputation in the US. The Virginia constitution specifically forbids it.

Has, but not had. From the original MA state constitution:

Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.

[Jack_Batty]

I reiterate my complaint from the other thread.

This sets a bad precedent as it’s a give-away to Christians. If you already go to church every Sunday, how much are you being punished for a crime by having to go to church every Sunday?

[TriPolar]

I like the idea of using church as a punishment. If we’re going to have those things sitting around tax free they ought to have some public utility.

[Ludovic]

@TriPolar

I like the idea of using church as a punishment. If we’re going to have those things sitting around tax free they ought to have some public utility.

Plus, having people going there as punishment is usually a pretty effective way of preventing them from ever wanting to go there willingly ever again.

[Elendil_s_Heir]

Clearly unconstitutional, even if the defendant agrees to it. Let him go to church if he wants to, but in a country with a First Amendment and a long tradition of the rights of conscience and the free exercise of religion, no court should ever be ordering anyone to attend church.

[TriPolar]

@Elendil_s_Heir

Clearly unconstitutional, even if the defendant agrees to it. Let him go to church if he wants to, but in a country with a First Amendment and a long tradition of the rights of conscience and the free exercise of religion, no court should ever be ordering anyone to attend church.

Ok, but is it really an order if the convicted agrees? It’s not really different from the judge agreeing to some probation based on the guy’s new lifestyle that involves church attendance. Would that be unconstitutional?

[Jack_Batty]

So if both parties agreed that the convicted kid should go over to the victim’s house every weekend and file down the victim’s mom’s bunions for a year, that would hunky-dory too?

If that were the case, why have courts, and punitive laws at all. Let the perpetrators and their victims hash out the appropriate punishments.

[TriPolar]

@Jack_Batty

So if both parties agreed that the convicted kid should go over to the victim’s house every weekend and file down the victim’s mom’s bunions for a year, that would hunky-dory too?

If that were the case, why have courts, and punitive laws at all. Let the perpetrators and their victims hash out the appropriate punishments.

Because the perpetrators don’t always agree to the terms, and they have very little standing in the process. I’m not necessarily agreeing with this particular case, but if justice is served, what difference does it make?

[Zsofia]

They send people to Alcoholics Anonymous, a pretty religious organization, don’t they?

[Jack_Batty]

@TriPolar

Because the perpetrators don’t always agree to the terms, and they have very little standing in the process. I’m not necessarily agreeing with this particular case, but if justice is served, what difference does it make?

Because justice is not being served. Going to church - especially if you’re already a Christian - is a function of your religion, it’s not a punishment.

But the larger point stands. If a victim’s family said, “Eh, we don’t care; set the perpetrator free,” (and I’m pretty sure the perpetrator would agree to those terms) the case doesn’t just get dropped on their say so. It’s pretty much the same thing when the victim’s family says, “Eh, just send him to church.”

[TriPolar]

@Jack_Batty

Because justice is not being served. Going to church - especially if you’re already a Christian - is a function of your religion, it’s not a punishment.

But the larger point stands. If a victim’s family said, “Eh, we don’t care; set the perpetrator free,” (and I’m pretty sure the perpetrator would agree to those terms) the case doesn’t just get dropped on their say so. It’s pretty much the same thing when the victim’s family says, “Eh, just send him to church.”

Ok, but letting someone go without punishment, remorse, or rehabilitation would not be just. So the question is, if it were just, if justice were served in all ways except perhaps the constitutional issue, what would be wrong with it? If going to church is the punishment that fits the crime, should it be disallowed on seperation of church and state grounds?

[Jack_Batty]

Going to church isn’t punishment in the first place, so how could fit a crime as punishment?

And let’s not get too far afield. The crime is – well I don’t know the precise charge – but the kid killed another kid in a drunk driving accident. The punishment for that cannot be – do what you were going to do anyway, but really think about your crime while your there from now on.

[gnoitall]

@Jack_Batty

Going to church isn’t punishment in the first place, so how could fit a crime as punishment?

And let’s not get too far afield. The crime is – well I don’t know the precise charge – but the kid killed another kid in a drunk driving accident. The punishment for that cannot be – do what you were going to do anyway, but really think about your crime while your there from now on.

Although this is still greatly in debate, one prominent philosophy in criminal law is that you don’t sentence the convicted to punish them: you sentence the convicted to rehabilitate them. The word “penitentiary” means “a place for penitents”: people who repent from what they did before (crime) and turn towards the alternative.

Admittedly, you don’t see much of that in current prison practice (notice that “penitentiary” seems to be used less and less nowadays)… but if one purpose of imprisonment is to encourage reforming and “turning over a new leaf”, it doesn’t seem entirely incompatible to mandate the opportunity for repentance in a religious context rather than a purely public-morals (imprisonment) one.

[Jack_Batty]

@gnoitall

Admittedly, you don’t see much of that in current prison practice (notice that “penitentiary” seems to be used less and less nowadays)… but if one purpose of imprisonment is to encourage reforming and “turning over a new leaf”, it doesn’t seem entirely incompatible to mandate the opportunity for repentance in a religious context rather than a purely public-morals (imprisonment) one.

I discount that completely, because it flies in the face of separation of church and state. In fact, this is the state mandating the church.

If the judge wants to go all soft and sentence the kid to rehabilitation without punishment, and the victim’s family agrees, then - to TriPolar’s point - what difference does it make. But when that judge says that rehabilitation must be derived from religion, he’s stepped all over the constitution, in my mind.