Go to Jail or go to Church?

[gnomon]

Serve Time In Jail...Or In Church? | WKRG

If offenders elect church, they're allowed to pick the place of worship, but must check in weekly with the pastor and the police department. If the one-year church attendance program is completed successfully, the offender's case will be dismissed

What do you think?

I don't know if they allow synagogues, mosques, etc. as alternatives to jail or if such facilities exist to any degree in Baldwin County, Alabama. If you are irreligious than I guess you are screwed unless they allow attendance at a secular humanist meeting or allow what courts have stated in order to meet constitutional muster on court mandated alcohol treatment. Which is to allow individuals to establish their own programs.

And what crimes will they allow for this to be treated in such a manner? Petty theft? If someone commits a crime that would mean no more than a week in jail and a small fine it would be better to fine them and put them on house arrest.

And the painfully obvious. How many people arrested in this nation, especially south Alabama, do not already assert a form of religious belief?

 

[fallingblood]

I think it could be a smart choice. It would help with the overpopulation in jail, as well as the cost to house the inmates. And maybe for some, it may help them find a better path (that is if the individual wants to find a better path. If they do, just being in church will give them access to people who can help with various needs of his). I'm not sure if just sitting in on a church service will have any benefits though.

For me, I find church extremely boring, and really a waste of my time. The only thing I really notice during a service are various mistakes the minister may make on a historical aspect, or an interpretation that I find very off. So for someone like me, it would be basically just passing the time.

On the other hand, it will keep the individual in check as they are reporting to the same place every week. I'm sure if they come in intoxicated or under the influence of something, their would be consequences, so it would be a deterrent for at least one time frame.

If they could open the idea up a little more, and maybe make them volunteer at a homeless shelter every week or something similar instead of church, it may have a better impact.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

A church. I'm sure you get more freedom there. Less rapes.

 

[Breathe]

Serve Time In Jail...Or In Church? | WKRG



What do you think?

I think it's pretty cool.

It allows some people who are spiritual to repent and work off their actions, I guess -- and it allows for making social acquaintances which can allow self development.

Just my opinion.

 

[Father Heathen]

A church. I'm sure you get more freedom there. Less rapes.

Unless you're a child.

 

[gnomon]

I oppose it on various grounds:

1) It's unconstitutional. A choice between jail and a church is not going to pass muster in the courts. The choice between jail and Alcoholics Anonymous could not even pass the test of the Establishment Clause. The only way the county can make it work is if they do the same for those ordered to Alcoholics Anonymous. The individual criminal gets to pick what spiritual program they want to work.

And let's face reality. In South Alabama I seriously doubt that the people will accept individuals getting out of non-violent property crimes by attending a non-Christian place of worship once a week. Which leads me to....

2) I would not someone who stole property from me being allowed to pay their debt by attending a Church service once a week. First of all, it is far more likely that the perp already expresses some form of Christian belief. That's the law of averages. To tell me that someone who violated the law is going to pay recompense by attending a service in a religion they most likely already attended at some point in their life is just absurd.

3) This is jail. Not prison. Jail. I've spent two weeks in jail. It's not that hard. There are alternatives to jail which actually allow someone to pay back what they owe to society if they committed a crime that has victims. Community service. Compensating victims for stolen or damaged property.

4) It won't work. Misdemeanors traditionally carry up to a year in jail. That's the max. Sentences for small, non violent offenses, especially victimless crimes, could carry a week in jail. Would the person have to choose between a week in jail or once a week church services. What would happen if they did not attend a single church service? Who is going to tell? The church. The church definitely cannot be enforced by law to partake in this charade. Just as members of Alcoholics Anonymous are under no compulsion from the State to fill out those little attendance cards a pastor or deacon would definitely not be under any compulsion to ensure that someone on probation is attending church.

5) It is irresponsible. It is already well known that incarceration in this nation is out of control. What we need to do is look at the ridiculous number of laws on the books that are leading to overcrowded facilities rather than shop them out to houses of worship.

More than anything this sounds like a get out of jail free card to me.

edit: Or it could be the greatest idea since the condom. It's just that all my experience, personal and what I've read, in regards to mandating "spiritual" repentance is that it's useless.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

That is a violation of religious freedoms. People should not have to go to church is they do not want to. I oppose this travesty of justice because Christianity should be a free choice.

 

[Riverwolf]

It's an interesting idea, which I think has potential if it can be expanded to include similar institutions, either from other religions, or secular ones. (Though if theft is the problem, a Hindu Temple would probably not be a good idea, considering the expensive statues in them. ^_^)

This sort of thing is a step in the right direction IMO, but if left as it is, will only cause problems.

 

[gnomon]

If we have laws in which the consequences are not serious enough to warrant jail than they are not serious enough to warrant forced religious attendance.

 

[darkstar]

That is a violation of religious freedoms. People should not have to go to church is they do not want to. I oppose this travesty of justice because Christianity should be a free choice.

Exactly. Being forced into religion is not the way to gain more followers.99% of these people will not stay after their year is up. And who is going to choose jail over going to church for a couple of hours?
Heck, I'm not Christian and I have attended Church with friends and my mother in law. (I love debating with preachers. You'd be surprised how many are more open to ideas than most of their congregation)

But honestly, as stated earlier, this is jail we're talking about. People usually don't get raped in jail, that's more of a long term prison thing. And also, if someone chooses church over jail... what of compensation to the victim. If this is honestly a shot at repentance I would HOPE that asking forgiveness and paying your debt to the victim of your crime would be included, but I don't see it in the news article so I doubt it.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

Exactly. Being forced into religion is not the way to gain more followers.99% of these people will not stay after their year is up. And who is going to choose jail over going to church for a couple of hours?
Heck, I'm not Christian and I have attended Church with friends and my mother in law. (I love debating with preachers. You'd be surprised how many are more open to ideas than most of their congregation)

But honestly, as stated earlier, this is jail we're talking about. People usually don't get raped in jail, that's more of a long term prison thing. And also, if someone chooses church over jail... what of compensation to the victim. If this is honestly a shot at repentance I would HOPE that asking forgiveness and paying your debt to the victim of your crime would be included, but I don't see it in the news article so I doubt it.

I know, right? I see so many problems with this too.

 

[fallingblood]

It's an interesting idea, which I think has potential if it can be expanded to include similar institutions, either from other religions, or secular ones. (Though if theft is the problem, a Hindu Temple would probably not be a good idea, considering the expensive statues in them. ^_^)

This sort of thing is a step in the right direction IMO, but if left as it is, will only cause problems.

I agree with you. I think it would be a good stepping stone to something positive.

 

[fallingblood]

Exactly. Being forced into religion is not the way to gain more followers.99% of these people will not stay after their year is up. And who is going to choose jail over going to church for a couple of hours?
Heck, I'm not Christian and I have attended Church with friends and my mother in law. (I love debating with preachers. You'd be surprised how many are more open to ideas than most of their congregation)

But honestly, as stated earlier, this is jail we're talking about. People usually don't get raped in jail, that's more of a long term prison thing. And also, if someone chooses church over jail... what of compensation to the victim. If this is honestly a shot at repentance I would HOPE that asking forgiveness and paying your debt to the victim of your crime would be included, but I don't see it in the news article so I doubt it.

No one is being forced into religion though. It is a choice. Go to jail, or go to church. They are given a choice.

Depending on the jail though, some of them can be very brutal. You get into some of the bigger cities, and rape, killing, etc are not uncommon. Especially when the jail is only a stopping point for some of the inmates.

As for the church thing though, it could get some people into contact with those who could help them get on a better path. That, or they could help the individual get back on their feet. Granted, there could be a better option, and if this law would evolve, it could be quite a benefit.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

No one is being forced into religion though. It is a choice. Go to jail, or go to church. They are given a choice.

Depending on the jail though, some of them can be very brutal. You get into some of the bigger cities, and rape, killing, etc are not uncommon. Especially when the jail is only a stopping point for some of the inmates.

As for the church thing though, it could get some people into contact with those who could help them get on a better path. That, or they could help the individual get back on their feet. Granted, there could be a better option, and if this law would evolve, it could be quite a benefit.

You are wrong. That is not a free choice and it violates people's rights. The government needs to stay out of religion.

 

[Bob Dixon]

You are wrong. That is not a free choice and it violates people's rights. The government needs to stay out of religion.

Absolutely right. Most people would choose church over jail, but it's not like it's supposed to be. You're supposed to be choosing church over sleeping in on Sunday, not over going to prison.

 

[fallingblood]

You are wrong. That is not a free choice and it violates people's rights. The government needs to stay out of religion.

So, having a choice to go to jail or to go to church is not a free choice? Even though they are not forcing you to go to the church, or what church, or convert, or follow the religion, somehow they are not having a free choice? I honestly don't understand that. There is no forcing anyone to go to church here, to be Christian, or anything. How is that violating their rights when they get to make the decision freely?

 

[fallingblood]

Absolutely right. Most people would choose church over jail, but it's not like it's supposed to be. You're supposed to be choosing church over sleeping in on Sunday, not over going to prison.

Jail, not prison. There is a major difference. More so, going to jail for a couple of days compared to goin to church for a year, jail would be easier, at least for me.

 

[fenrisx]

I think it could be a smart choice. It would help with the overpopulation in jail, as well as the cost to house the inmates. And maybe for some, it may help them find a better path (that is if the individual wants to find a better path. If they do, just being in church will give them access to people who can help with various needs of his). I'm not sure if just sitting in on a church service will have any benefits though.

For me, I find church extremely boring, and really a waste of my time. The only thing I really notice during a service are various mistakes the minister may make on a historical aspect, or an interpretation that I find very off. So for someone like me, it would be basically just passing the time.

On the other hand, it will keep the individual in check as they are reporting to the same place every week. I'm sure if they come in intoxicated or under the influence of something, their would be consequences, so it would be a deterrent for at least one time frame.

If they could open the idea up a little more, and maybe make them volunteer at a homeless shelter every week or something similar instead of church, it may have a better impact.

No issues persay, if they allow for the convicted's faith and it's requirements. If its just christian then it stinks of an agenda stinking of dominionism.

 

[gnomon]

It's coercive.

If you go to jail you do your time, pay your fines and have the non-violent offense on your record.

Or go to a church, presumably only Christian given this is Bay Minette, Alabama, and the charges are dropped.

It's state proselytization and nothing more. The precedent has already been set for this as well. Every case of state coerced AA attendance has been held up as unconstitutional in that AA is viewed as a religious organization by the courts. And that's because it is a religious organization.

If, and this is a big if, people have the opportunity to attend a religion, not church, but religion of their choosing than the Bay Minette judiciary may be able to get away with such an offer. Except for one thing.

Offering someone a religious attendance at a church and dismissal of their charges or jail and no dismissal is still coercive.

 

[blackout]

Go to Jail or go to Church?

ummmm... erm.... uhhhh....

that's a tough one.



Can I pick UU?