So What Do You Think Of This?

I’m staying apolitical (though it’s soooo hard to do), but what say you?

SALT LAKE CITY β€” A district judge in Oklahoma has generated new controversy by sentencing a teenager to 10 years of church attendance, even though the judge admits it’s not constitutional.

Religion News Services reports Judge Mike Norman gave Tyler Alred, 17, a 10-year deferred sentence for DUI manslaughter. Alred was driving a pickup truck that crashed and killed a passenger in December 2011.

In deferring the sentence, the judge not only ordered Alred to a decade of church attendance, but also required him to finish high school and welding school.

Alred’s attorney and the victim’s family agreed to the terms of the sentence.

The ACLU in Oklahoma calls the church requirement a “clear violation of the First Amendment.”

Judge Norman, who has recommended church as part of sentencing in some past cases, admits the church attendance part of the sentence won’t hold up legally but doubts either side in the case will appeal.

He says the sentence was the right thing to do.

Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to So What Do You Think Of This?

  1. Slaphappypap says:

    I would prefer that the judge would have him send a one dollar bill in a sympathy card to the family on the anniversary of the passengers’ death. Forever.

  2. xenicalman says:

    As there is no real deterrent here and no meaningful punishment,I give this asshole 3 months before he fucks up.
    Must a be progressive judge who got a warm and fuzzy feeling when he pronounced the sentence.
    What a deal?

  3. John B. says:

    Is it the same church as the victims family?

  4. serfer62 says:

    Wether Constitutional or not, all parties agreed nulifying the aclu;s perpetual BS.

    I hope the kid complets the sentance and gains from it…orther wise its prison.

  5. notamobster says:

    serfer – in that case, are you okay with our courts enforcing sha’ria law if all parties agree to it?

    (This is why I stayed apolitical in my post.) πŸ™‚

  6. BigJimTX says:

    “if all parties agree to it”

    Nota – are you okay with limiting the religious freedom of others even though they are agreed to by all parties involved?

    (pulls pin and starts counting)


  7. sortahwitte says:

    In Oklahoma, our justice system is eat up with progressive, dumbass, constitution bending judges. For a conservative state, we have way too much bending the law.

  8. notamobster says:

    BigJim – The religious freedoms of others do not fall under the purview of our justice system except as our justice system might impede upon said rights – in which case, our systems sole purpose shall be to defend said religious liberty, not to enforce the edicts of same.

    This wasn’t just a matter of two parties making a religious covenant, and the court enforcing that contract. (Enforcing contracts is actually the job of the government.)

    This was a matter of criminal justice. The criminal justice system should remain absolutely unencumbered of religion. All religion.

    I’m prepared to guarantee that this State’s revised statutes have absolutely no enforcement mechanism which involves two parties agreeing to religious punishment or intervention. The judge overstepped his bounds.

    The dead person requires justice, without regard to the opinions of the decedent’s family, or their willingness to forgive, etc. Justice should be blind. It should be applied based upon the law, not the beliefs, whims, or fancies of the involved parties.

  9. Rich says:

    This is nuts.

    I could see 1 year as an out of the box sentencing idea.

    But ten years is simply an attempt of coersion of religion,

    and that is BS.

    The Judge had a decent idea … but he went too far.