17 year old sentenced to attend church for 10 years

  • 115 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Laihendi
#-49 Posted by Laihendi (5876 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="sune_Gem"]

I guess they'll teach good morals even if he doesn't want to delve into faith.

sune_Gem

Christianity advocates some good behaviours, but it doesn't teach good morals because the entire religion is based on faith which is itself an immoral concept. I don't think him attending church for 10 years will do any good at all.

As far as I was aware, most teach children to be well mannered, polite, and to give what they'd expect to be given themselves in order to please God.

The fact that people will do those things to please God rather than because they believe those things are inherently good to do undermines the credibility of any claim to morality that christianity has. Like I said, it teaches some good behaviours, but performing good behaviours for the wrong reasons isn't a sign of morality. It's just a coincidence.
Avatar image for perfect_blue
#-48 Posted by Perfect_Blue (30447 posts) -

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

So no jail time, just church? What?

theone86

In fairness, they're pretty similar. The really big difference is that in jail the sodomy doesn't stop at puberty.

Jon-Stewart-saying-Oh-Snap.gif

Avatar image for Laihendi
#-47 Posted by Laihendi (5876 posts) -
[QUOTE="Wilfred_Owen"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] wut

Faith promotes ignorance and intellectual laziness. It teaches people to not think independently and to do/believe as they are told. Any exercise of faith is a suspension of reason. A person of faith is incapable of distinguishing right from wrong, but assumes that he acts rightly anyways. Reason is the only means of understanding anything, and is therefore the only basis for a credible code of ethics.

Well I've had my fill of laughter for the day.

Nice appeal to ridicule bruh. Please provide an intelligent rebuttal if you have one.
Avatar image for WSGRandomPerson
#-46 Posted by WSGRandomPerson (13694 posts) -
Stupidest thing I have read for the month of November.
Avatar image for radicalcentrist
#-45 Posted by radicalcentrist (335 posts) -

It's only illegal if it gets overturned on appeal. What, is the defendant's family going to appeal and demand prison time instead?

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
#-44 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12605 posts) -

KiIIyou

Who is this?

Sig

Avatar image for konvikt_17
#-43 Posted by konvikt_17 (22378 posts) -

[QUOTE="KiIIyou"]WhiteKnight77

Who is this?

Sig

a search by image thingy gave me the name : Kyary Pamyu Pamyu

found that same image when i image searched the name.

wouldnt have guessed she was japanese by that image.:P

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
#-42 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12605 posts) -

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Who is this?

Sig

konvikt_17

a search by image thingy gave me the name : Kyary Pamyu Pamyu

found that same image when i image searched the name.

wouldnt have guessed she was japanese by that image.:P

Check out this pic I found of her. I thought her to be someone else, but for some reason, I can't drag pics into Google to do a search. I did it once and haven't been able to do it since.

Kyary

What a freaky costume she is wearing. It has 6 eyes on it.:shock:

Avatar image for konvikt_17
#-41 Posted by konvikt_17 (22378 posts) -

[QUOTE="konvikt_17"]

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

Who is this?

Sig

WhiteKnight77

a search by image thingy gave me the name : Kyary Pamyu Pamyu

found that same image when i image searched the name.

wouldnt have guessed she was japanese by that image.:P

Check out this pic I found of her. I thought her to be someone else, but for some reason, I can't drag pics into Google to do a search. I did it once and haven't been able to do it since.

Kyary

What a freaky costume she is wearing. It has 6 eyes on it.:shock:

oh my, thats...different.:P

i had to open up two windows and put them side by side then drag the image across.:P

Avatar image for TrainerCeleste
#-40 Posted by TrainerCeleste (1633 posts) -
I guess drinking and driving is all ok as long a you go to church o3o If he goes every sunday what difference will it make? He killed his friend, and saying I wana change of course hes going to say that :P He just killed his friend and would likely face prison time xD
Avatar image for mahlasor
#-39 Posted by mahlasor (1278 posts) -

Its only a thing he does for an hour a week, its almost like community service... Except it takes a retardedly long time to get through.

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
#-38 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12605 posts) -

As long as the kid agreed to the punishment, who cares how he serves it. Being that he is learning a trade is a plus. Maybe he can make something of it and do something worthwhile.

Avatar image for NiKva
#-37 Posted by NiKva (8181 posts) -
I'd rather go to church than jail.
Avatar image for BuryMe
#-36 Posted by BuryMe (22017 posts) -

This better get overturned.

A disgusting misuse of power.

However the rest of his sentene makes perfect sense. I'm glad to see some get an otherwise practicle sentence for a crime, instead of hard time, which teaches nothing.

Avatar image for Sajo7
#-35 Posted by Sajo7 (14049 posts) -
Oklahoma: where Sharia law is banned and people get sentenced to church.
Avatar image for soulless4now
#-34 Posted by soulless4now (41388 posts) -

Maybe he'll learn something at least I would hope so.

Avatar image for BuryMe
#-33 Posted by BuryMe (22017 posts) -

[QUOTE="mingmao3046"]Id rather be on probation and go to church than go to jail if i killed someone like that though i would probably kill myself honestly. couldnt live with that guilt.KiIIyou
People say that but I don't think it's true.

I agree. As much as the punishment is wrong for many reasons, I'd much rather be sentenced to church for 10 years (which will take about 1 hour per week) than jail for 1, and be able to do nothing for that entire time.

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
#-32 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12605 posts) -

This better get overturned.

A disgusting misuse of power.

However the rest of his sentene makes perfect sense. I'm glad to see some get an otherwise practicle sentence for a crime, instead of hard time, which teaches nothing.

BuryMe

So send him to jail where he doesn't go to classes and does not graduate nor learn a trade? :roll:

Avatar image for BuryMe
#-31 Posted by BuryMe (22017 posts) -

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

This better get overturned.

A disgusting misuse of power.

However the rest of his sentene makes perfect sense. I'm glad to see some get an otherwise practicle sentence for a crime, instead of hard time, which teaches nothing.

WhiteKnight77

So send him to jail where he doesn't go to classes and does not graduate nor learn a trade? :roll:

No... Keep his punishment exactly as is, except for the mandated church.

That's why I said the rest of it makes perfect sense.

Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
#-30 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12605 posts) -

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

So send him to jail where he doesn't go to classes and does not graduate nor learn a trade? :roll:

BuryMe

No... Keep his punishment exactly as is, except for the mandated church.

That's why I said the rest of it makes perfect sense.

A plea bargain has to be agreed to. He agreed to said sentence so as to not go to jail. Nothing to be overturned.

Avatar image for worlock77
#-29 Posted by worlock77 (22552 posts) -
Whether the kid agreed to it or not that's a flagrant violation of the Seperation Clause.
Avatar image for LostProphetFLCL
#-28 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (18526 posts) -

I want to know what the judges reasoning even was for this stupid church part...

Avatar image for mindstorm
#-27 Posted by mindstorm (15254 posts) -
I have known of church functions fulfilling certain legal requirements but usually it's one of several options, not the only one. As an example, one guy I knew was required to spend a certain amount of time each week, for a lack of a better term, volunteering. Helping with church functions was the way he chose to meet those requirements. If church is the only option, I disagree with him being forced to do this, but if it is but one of several available options, I'm game.
Avatar image for Lord_Terrapin
#-26 Posted by Lord_Terrapin (45 posts) -
The judge should't be allowed to do that!
Avatar image for TacticalDesire
#-25 Posted by TacticalDesire (10713 posts) -

You're right some of these judgers are out of control. I heard recently about some judge who sentenced a woman to public humiliation that involved holding up some signs detailing her crimes. Seriously, are we regressing as a society?

Avatar image for TacticalDesire
#-24 Posted by TacticalDesire (10713 posts) -

How is this even legal?
Dosen't separation of church and state prevent the use of church as a punishment?

Omni-Wrath

The message here though is that church is a punishment. Anyway, have fun at Sunday school kids!

Avatar image for lamprey263
#-23 Posted by lamprey263 (35008 posts) -
the church requirement wouldn't stand an appeal, as often happens with people that fight aspects of their DUI sentences requiring they attend AA since AA is faith based, the 10 year church requirement would most likely be thrown out of court if appealed still though, there's a lot of other requirements in the sentence if you read it, it's not like he's free to do whatever he wants, looks like the judge was mostly concerned with setting him on a straightened path, and in that sense I think the sentence was reasonable, wish judges would show this kind of consideration with the millions of others that are forced behind bars who don't really need to be there, it could save states lots of money and make a lot more responsible citizens rather than turning them feral through the corrections system
Avatar image for mccoyca112
#-22 Posted by mccoyca112 (5434 posts) -

You're right some of these judgers are out of control. I heard recently about some judge who sentenced a woman to public humiliation that involved holding up some signs detailing her crimes. Seriously, are we regressing as a society?

TacticalDesire

That wasn't the bus one, was it? Honestly, I don't find that all that bad. And quite appropriate. If I was the idiot, I could stomach that. This is just dumb though. The punishment needs to match the crime. In the scope of things, I don't give a damn about church & state; give him a punishment that'll make him actually think twice.

Avatar image for CHOASXIII
#-21 Posted by CHOASXIII (14696 posts) -

So church is now jail? lol

Avatar image for lamprey263
#-20 Posted by lamprey263 (35008 posts) -

So church is now jail? lol

CHOASXIII
one thing I've learned about Church is that it can make just one hour feel like eons never understood why cosmologists insist on searching for the mysteries to space and time with telescopes and particle accelerators and chalkboards full of differential gibberish, they should start at Church
Avatar image for bloodling
#-19 Posted by bloodling (5822 posts) -

I don't think people should be forced to go to church, you can't force someone to believe in something. But the church does teach good values, so it's not all that bad I guess. I think the rest of his sentence is very appropriate. I just don't understand the bunch of gamespot users who want him in jail. This type of sentence looks far more appropriate in this case.

Avatar image for PernicioEnigma
#-18 Posted by PernicioEnigma (5895 posts) -
[QUOTE="mindstorm"]I have known of church functions fulfilling certain legal requirements but usually it's one of several options, not the only one. As an example, one guy I knew was required to spend a certain amount of time each week, for a lack of a better term, volunteering. Helping with church functions was the way he chose to meet those requirements. If church is the only option, I disagree with him being forced to do this, but if it is but one of several available options, I'm game.

Do you think going to Church is a sufficient punishment for what I consider in essence to be manslaughter?
Avatar image for ShadowsDemon
#-17 Posted by ShadowsDemon (10054 posts) -
:lol: I bet he'll have fun with the priest.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#-16 Posted by LJS9502_basic (163069 posts) -
I think from reading the article it was something the defendant/family wanted......so it's tacked on. Hold the hysteria batman....
Avatar image for hippiesanta
#-15 Posted by hippiesanta (10299 posts) -
thank goat that guy is not a moslem ... or he will get Hudud .. lol
Avatar image for mindstorm
#-14 Posted by mindstorm (15254 posts) -
[QUOTE="PernicioEnigma"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]I have known of church functions fulfilling certain legal requirements but usually it's one of several options, not the only one. As an example, one guy I knew was required to spend a certain amount of time each week, for a lack of a better term, volunteering. Helping with church functions was the way he chose to meet those requirements. If church is the only option, I disagree with him being forced to do this, but if it is but one of several available options, I'm game.

Do you think going to Church is a sufficient punishment for what I consider in essence to be manslaughter?

Not at all. I'm speaking about whether or not the government can force a person to go to church more than anything. I tend to be the type to encourage heavier sentences, not less.
Avatar image for krazykillaz
#-13 Posted by krazykillaz (21141 posts) -

It's only illegal if it gets overturned on appeal. What, is the defendant's family going to appeal and demand prison time instead?

radicalcentrist
I'm pretty sure they can't order something like that without offering an equivalent alternative.
Avatar image for The_High_Rule
#-11 Posted by The_High_Rule (25 posts) -
I don't know what is wrong with this except the attend church part. The guy was an idiot and should have known better but he never intended for any of this to happen. If I was in that situation, the guilt alone would be enough to punish me. But no, everyone feels to deal with mistakes like this by locking people up in prison, rather to fall deep into depression and commit suicide or to emerge bitter and angry at society.
Avatar image for Serraph105
#-10 Posted by Serraph105 (32126 posts) -

An Oklahoma teen convicted of manslaughter has sentenced to 10 years of probation, with requirements that include regularly attending church.

Tyler Alred, now 17, had been drinking when he crashed a pickup truckat around 4 a.m. on Dec. 3, 2011, Tulsa World reports. The accident killed Alred's friend, 16-year-old John Luke Dum, who was a passenger in the vehicle.

Alred was not legally drunk, but because he was below the legal drinking age, he was still considered to be driving under the influence of alcohol. The high school student pleaded guilty in August to a charge of manslaughter as a youthful offender.

"I did not want to do what I did," Alred told the court prior to his sentencing. "I want to change my life."

Members ofDum's family did not want to see Alred behind bars, the Muskogee Phoenix reported. "We don't need to see two lives wasted for a mistake," Dum's sister, Caitlin, wrote in a statement.

Instead of sentencing the teen to prison time, Judge Mike Norman gave him a 10-year deferred sentence. In order to stay out of prison, Alred must graduate from high school; graduate from welding school; take drug, alcohol and nicotine tests for a year; wear a drug and alcohol bracelet, take part in victim's impact panels, and attend church for the next 10 years.

This last requirement "raises legal issues because of (the separation of) church and state," University of Oklahoma law professor Randall Coyne told the Tulsa World.

University of Tulsa law professor Gary Allison told KTULthat the church requirement "speaks to maybe forcing people to do religious activities that they would otherwise not do on their own free will I don't know why a church would want to have someone come to it under the force of government,"

This apparently isn't the case for Alred, though. "My client goes to church every Sunday," defense attorney Donn Baker told the court. "That isn't going to be a problem for him."Laihendi

Link

These judges are getting ridiculous.

So you killed a person while drunk driving (underage) and the punishment these days is no alcohol and cigarettes for a year, wear a bracelet, and carry on with life as usual? I'm not sure how our legal system is allowed to throw church attendance in as a punishment, but where is the community service? Does victims panels count as community serivice? Where is jail time? f not jail time I feel like there is surely a harsher punishment we can come up with beyond no alcohol and nicotine.

Avatar image for Philosopho
#-9 Posted by Philosopho (86 posts) -
That should be overturned in higher courts if it's challenged. This kid could easily get the FFRF to go to bat for him if he wanted to do so. This is very much illegal.
Avatar image for WhiteKnight77
#-8 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12605 posts) -

The armchair lawyers here have no understanding how a plea bargain works. In order to get a plea bargain, that is agreed to by the prosecution and the accused, is that the accused waives all rights to appeal. If a defendent accepts a plea bargain, there is no appeal.

Legality

1. At the outset, it is important to note that the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a criminal defendant can elect to waive many important constitutional and statutory rights during the plea bargaining process. See United States v. Mezzanatto, 115 S. Ct. 797, 801 (1995); Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973); Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 71 (1977, cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 548 (1995). Consistent with that principle, the courts of appeals have upheld the general validity of a sentencing appeal waiver in a plea agreement. See, e.g., United States v. Allison, 59 F.3d 43, 46 (6th Cir. 1995); United States v. Schmidt, 47 F.3d 188, 190 (7th Cir. 1995); United States v. Attar, 38 F.3d 727, 731 (4th Cir. 1994), cert denied, 115 S. Ct. 1957 (1995); United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1350 (11th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 652 (1994); United States v. DeSantiago-Martinez, 980 F.2d 582, 583 (9th Cir. 1992), amended, 38 F.3d 394 (1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 939 (1995); United States v. Melancon, 972 F.2d 566, 567-568 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Rivera, 971 F.2d 876, 896 (2d Cir. 1992); United States v. Rutan, 956 F.2d 827, 829-830 (8th Cir. 1992).Plea Agreements and Sentencing Appeal Waivers -- Discussion of the Law

Now one can appeal if representation was lacking or was not effective (meaning that the lawyer really FUBARed in how he did his job), but from what has been stated, the defendent's lawyer did a good job.

Avatar image for hensothor
#-7 Posted by hensothor (522 posts) -
This is just cruel and unusual.
Avatar image for worlock77
#-6 Posted by worlock77 (22552 posts) -

I think from reading the article it was something the defendant/family wanted......so it's tacked on. Hold the hysteria batman....LJS9502_basic

Whether or not the defendant wanted it the judge was out of line in actually ruling it. And since when do we base sentences on what the defendant wants anyway?

Avatar image for m0zart
#-5 Posted by m0zart (11568 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I think from reading the article it was something the defendant/family wanted......so it's tacked on. Hold the hysteria batman....worlock77

Whether or not the defendant wanted it the judge was out of line in actually ruling it. And since when do we base sentences on what the defendant wants anyway?

Quite a lot actually. Court proceedings in sentencing are quite often based on bargaining, especially if the sentencing is being decided on in exchange for a guilty plea.

I don't like this ruling, but I don't see it as any worse really than any of these other inventive rulings Judges have been giving lately. Making a man wear a sign declaring that he is an idiot, forcing a mom to cut off her teenage daughter's hair right in court, etc. etc. seem much more out of line to me than this one.

Avatar image for worlock77
#-4 Posted by worlock77 (22552 posts) -

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I think from reading the article it was something the defendant/family wanted......so it's tacked on. Hold the hysteria batman....m0zart

Whether or not the defendant wanted it the judge was out of line in actually ruling it. And since when do we base sentences on what the defendant wants anyway?

Quite a lot actually. Court proceedings in sentencing are quite often based on bargaining, especially if the sentencing is being decided on in exchange for a guilty plea.

I don't like this ruling, but I don't see it as any worse really than any of these other inventive rulings Judges have been giving lately. Making a man wear a sign declaring that he is an idiot, forcing a mom to cut off her teenage daughter's hair right in court, etc. etc. seem much more out of line to me than this one.

I don't think plea bargans are necessarily giving sentences based on what the defendant wants, but rather what the prosecution is willing to offer.

I think they're all pretty out of line, but this one perhaps more so due to its violation of the Establishment Clause.

Avatar image for ThisIsTwoFace
#-3 Posted by ThisIsTwoFace (1132 posts) -

Only in the US.

Avatar image for indzman
#-2 Posted by indzman (27735 posts) -

Whats wrong with going to church in place of Jail? Going to Jail means career over, getting raped by convicts, blacklisted by society. For going to church you become a much better man than you are at present, get respect from society and above all you can lead a religious life.

Avatar image for wis3boi
#-1 Posted by wis3boi (32507 posts) -

Whats wrong with going to church in place of Jail? Going to Jail means career over, getting raped by convicts, blacklisted by society. For going to church you become a much better man than you are at present, get respect from society and above all you can lead a religious life.

indzman

No.

Avatar image for tenaka2
#0 Posted by tenaka2 (17054 posts) -

Only in the US.

ThisIsTwoFace