Commit a crime - go to jail, get a record. Go to church,...

[whackadoodle]

Hey, 'cause state upper courts got this shit wrong before...

BAY MINETTE, Alabama — A new alternative sentencing program offering first-time, nonviolent offenders a choice of a year of church attendance or jail time and fines is drawing fire from the American Civil Liberties Union as well as national attention, officials said Friday.

"This policy is blatantly unconstitutional," said Olivia Turner, executive director for the ACLU of Alabama. "It violates one basic tenet of the Constitution, namely that government can’t force participation in religious activity."

But the local police chief who is heading up the program starting Tuesday called "Restore Our Community" says no one is being forced to participate.

"Operation ROC resulted from meetings with church leaders," Bay Minette Police Chief Mike Rowland said. "It was agreed by all the pastors that at the core of the crime problem was the erosion of family values and morals. We have children raising children and parents not instilling values in young people."

Rowland said the idea was simple: get people who are not yet hardened criminals to become involved in positive programs — hundreds of free resources offered by some 104 churches in the region with 56 agreeing to help monitor first-time, nonviolent offenders. Under the program, pastors would report weekly to the chief and offenders in the program would bring a signed sheet to prove they attended church.

They would also have to answer some questions about the services, Rowland said. And the offenders who voluntarily choose church over jail get to pick the churches they attend. If they complete a year’s attendance, Rowland said, their criminal case would be dismissed.

Rowland said the goal is to produce "productive citizens."

Some critics say the program definitely crosses the line between church and state, with some minority religious groups shut out of participation because few mosques or synagogues exist in the area. And atheists would have no option, Rowland said, but to pick another alternative sentencing program.

Rowland said the Bay Minette ROC project is the only one of its kind in the country, but online searches show others have been tried. A similar program in London, Ky., drew headlines in 2004, and before that a judge in Lake Charles, La., was eventually suspended for ethics violations stemming from sentencing defendants to church, according to a Louisiana Supreme Court ruling in 1994.

"The biggest question or complaint we have had is about separation of church and state," Rowland said. "Those issues won’t come to the forefront because the offenders are not being forced to attend church, and what religion they choose is really up to them. We even have provisions for people who are from out of town to choose a place to worship in their own communities."

Rowland said he was doubtful, however, that an atheist would choose to participate in the ROC program, but would be able to choose community service or other options.

The ACLU is "considering options for response," Turner said.

"There isn’t a real choice here," she said. "This policy completely entangles government with religion, and is an abuse of power because it coerces people into religious exercise."

The coming ACLU assrape (bolded above) of this policy will be coming soon.

Bay Minette Police Chief Mike Rowland says the program could change the lives of people heading down the wrong path. So far, 56 churches are participating.

[Lord Zentei]

"Operation ROC resulted from meetings with church leaders," Bay Minette Police Chief Mike Rowland said. "It was agreed by all the pastors that at the core of the crime problem was the erosion of family values and morals."

Yeah, I bet.

What's the process being used here, since it seems to be the police chief who is the spokesman for this?

[whackadoodle]

Sorry- Edit:

Bay Minette Police Chief Mike Rowland says the program could change the lives of people heading down the wrong path. So far, 56 churches are participating.

The linked pastors are such paragons of morality and lawfulness, we should refer ALL criminals to them.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

This really doesn't seem like such a bad thing on its own to me, disregarding the possibly dangerous precedent implications. It's an alternative sentencing structure designed to get non-violent offenders involved in positive community service, and in a lot of these small towns the Church is really the only organisation with the infrastructure to handle directing and monitoring that kind of thing.

As far as precedent goes, though, it's not even a big deal. Local government goes hand-in-hand with churches for things like community initiatives all the time, and this doesn't seem much different.

[Stofsk]

Yeah this isn't really registering on my give-a-shit metre. Maybe if there were a secular version of it, nobody would care, but even so... if it keeps non-violent first-time offenders out of jail and doing stuff that aims to rehabilitate them, fucking great.

[Broomstick]

Guys, guys - this is American, land of Christian cults. Fine groups like Westboro Baptist and the FLDS. That's the problem - every two bit little sect will but jumping into this to recruit members and save people for Jeebus.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Yeah this isn't really registering on my give-a-shit metre. Maybe if there were a secular version of it, nobody would care, but even so... if it keeps non-violent first-time offenders out of jail and doing stuff that aims to rehabilitate them, fucking great.

It's not meant to rehabilitate them. It's meant to convert them.

This really doesn't seem like such a bad thing on its own to me, disregarding the possibly dangerous precedent implications. It's an alternative sentencing structure designed to get non-violent offenders involved in positive community service, and in a lot of these small towns the Church is really the only organisation with the infrastructure to handle directing and monitoring that kind of thing.

"Positive community service"? What does religion have to do with that? Where's the evidence that this will do anything useful, even assuming that it doesn't just make them worse people? Why is it a good idea to give churches pet thugs?

Basically, arguments like yours just take it as a given that the claims of churches as to their own moral superiority are accurate.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

It's not meant to rehabilitate them. It's meant to convert them.

Citation needed.

"Positive community service"? What does religion have to do with that?

Rowland said the idea was simple: get people who are not yet hardened criminals to become involved in positive programs — hundreds of free resources offered by some 104 churches in the region with 56 agreeing to help monitor first-time, nonviolent offenders.

Sorry you couldn't be bothered to read the article because you were too busy jerking your hate-boner.
But oh no it's religious people monitoring the community service.

clearly they'll be 'pet thugs' (what does that even meeeaaaannn)

[Faqa]

This really doesn't seem like such a bad thing on its own to me, disregarding the possibly dangerous precedent implications. It's an alternative sentencing structure designed to get non-violent offenders involved in positive community service, and in a lot of these small towns the Church is really the only organisation with the infrastructure to handle directing and monitoring that kind of thing.

As far as precedent goes, though, it's not even a big deal. Local government goes hand-in-hand with churches for things like community initiatives all the time, and this doesn't seem much different.

Ah, but it's not just "positive community service that happens to be run by a church". You have to actively attend the religious services - the court actually checks you on that.

And if you are a practicing believer of a non-Christian religion, how exactly do they plan to make sure this is being carried out? Or if the person is not religious? In the first case, you either make the program a complete joke for offenders or at some point have to force a religion that is not of the person's belief on them. In the second case, you can skip straight to that option.

And you are being forced. When the gov't says "You can either do this or go to jail/pay a fine" then you ARE being forced or at least pressured in every sense of the word.

So yeah. The ACLU will kick this in the nuts, and rightly so.

That said, people speaking of "the chruches getting pet thugs" really need to chill the fuck out. Before the foot soldiers of the Baptist Inquisition swoop down on them or something.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Ah, but it's not just "positive community service that happens to be run by a church". You have to actively attend the religious services - the court actually checks you on that.

And if you are a practicing believer of a non-Christian religion, how exactly do they plan to make sure this is being carried out? Or if the person is not religious? In the first case, you either make the program a complete joke for offenders or at some point have to force a religion that is not of the person's belief on them. In the second case, you can skip straight to that option.

And you are being forced. When the gov't says "You can either do this or go to jail/pay a fine" then you ARE being forced or at least pressured in every sense of the word.

Forced? In the very broadest sense of the word, I guess, but it's not really applicable any more than people are 'forced' into arbitration in civil suits* where they might win less than if they went for the normal justice.

Anyways, thinking about it more, I appreciate your concerns, but then again, in Canada we give both the First Nations and Jewish communities (and probably other religions, idk) the legal authority to solve problems 'within' the community on their own terms (usually involving community service), and it works pretty well and hasn't let to a Jewish-Aboriginal take-over of the government (or if it has, it has been very subtle). Viewing this in those terms make the religious requirements a bit less sinister, though I do agree that they are bad and just having Church-monitored service would be better. So it could be that my cultural experiences have made me less inherently fearful of this kind of thing. If it puts less of a stress on the government and nobody's being forced into a religion they don't buy into, and it's all out-in-the-open and properly monitored by the government, I'm all for it. I highly doubt the churches are demanding that people protest abortion clinics as a form of community service.



* Ignoring lunatic corporate contracts requiring arbitration. Those can go get fucked.

[Faqa]

I don't get your analogy about arbitration. Outside said lunatic contracts requiring it, don't both parties have to consent to civil arbitration, with either side having the option to decline and go through the courts as is their civil right?

Also, regarding the communities, isn't it merely a matter of the gov't declining to pursue a matter if both sides can work it out themselves?

This is different. This isn't two people of the same sect deciding to work things out between themselves and asking the government to stay out of it. It's one person, confined by agents of the state, and given a choice - go to a religious service or go to jail. People without a recognized religion (try finding a Jedi temple in the middle of the Deep South) or people not of a religion do not have the first option. This means you are either forcing them into someone else's religious service (and that's the government forcing religion) or denying them that option on religious grounds (religious discrimination).

[Hillary]

It's not meant to rehabilitate them. It's meant to convert them.

Citation needed.

You need a citation that churches seek to convert non-believers and reaffirm believers? Really? You've got to be shitting me.

[Flagg]

I'm a fucking Atheist, what happens if I'm nailed on a pot charge and given this option? Do I just lie, say I'm a Christian and be forced to attend religious services for a year? That's 1) Bullshit, and 2) Blatantly unconstitutional.

[Stofsk]

I'm a fucking Atheist, what happens if I'm nailed on a pot charge and given this option? Do I just lie, say I'm a Christian and be forced to attend religious services for a year? That's 1) Bullshit, and 2) Blatantly unconstitutional.

Yeah there should be some kind of alternative option for atheists and others who have a non-traditional-belief. That said, I'd pick Church over Prison any day.

Look I get what people are saying - this does seem to cross the line between Church/State pretty blatantly. The idea at its core though is sound - getting first-time offenders who are non-violent out of the laughably titled 'corrections' system. There should be various options for this that accounts for different beliefs and even non-beliefs. An atheist should be given the option to do some kind of work-release program or some kind of community service thing. But as NUA says, Churches do community service all the time and they have that infrastructure in place already. Why not take advantage of it?

Hell why do you even put guys who are first time offenders on non-violent crimes in jail to begin with is beyond me. I mean the law is an ass all over the globe but it seems especially so in America.

[Broomstick]

It's actually quite common in the US for first time offenders to get community service, perhaps with an additional fine. Other options are parole, house arrest with electronic monitoring, and work-release in a low-security facility not that much different from a motel environment except, of course, your freedom of movement is restricted. Any jail/prison sucks, of course, but not all facilities are pound-you-in-the-ass hardcore.

Of course, the non-violent offenders given such options are seldom profiled in the media and thus are invisible.

Nor am I claiming everyone is treated fairly in the system, just that the worst stories are just that, the worst stories, and not the universal experience.

Church-sponsored or monitored community service is likewise a common option in many areas. The difference is that the "common option" does not require attendance at religious services! This does, not only attendance but also a quiz on what went on in the church services. There is an element of indoctrination here that makes me very, very uncomfortable. In fact, it seems attendance at services is the main point, with anything else being extra, if done at all.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

I take it back, having to read the incessant comments and links from alternately smug and persecution-complexed Catholic friends on facebook has hardened my heart for the moment. Boo-urns.