Oklahoma teen sentenced to ten years of church

Hilarious! That kid did a victory dance all the way home.

Appeal.

Bwahahahahahaha!

 

it doesn't mater, the act of the judge pushing his religion on people is wrong

and his own quote confirms this

judge says "I told my preacher I thought I led more people to Jesus than he had "

http://gawker.com/5961843/oklahoma-t...ears-of-church




.

 

What's this crap talk? You're defending the ruling with fuzzy argumentation that amounts to "judge knows best." Well, no, not always. And most especially not when he tries to force someone into religion.

Anyway, I don't see why "the church of your choice" couldn't be a mosque or a Wiccan church.

 

its unconstitutional because it is making a law--that someone is lawfully obligated to follow with consequence of prison if he doesn't--to go to church. Its forcing spirituality.

This kid may be happy now. Five years from now---maybe he IS an Atheist. He can sue or appeal then. And he would win.

And I am not an expert, but I do read the Constitution pretty plainly. Seems to me he has made a law respecting an establishment of religion---in this case forcing religion.

 

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/loving.html

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
-Judge Leon M. Bazile (January 6, 1959)

religion should not be used as a punishment by a judge, religion clouds a judges mind

.

 

I see nothing in this sentence that shows that this kid is allowed to drive, nor can you demonstrate how 10 years in prison will be any more effective in preventing such an occurence after his release.

Regardless, I don't consider this a slap on the wrist. I consider this more constructive and wise than throwing this kid in prison for 10 years, and ruining his life. I base this upon the reaction of the family of the victim, and the reaction of the community itself.

This is only a story because atheists have gotten their undies in a bundle over yet another example of the great unwashed in US society, and how they employ God in their lives to heal wounds.

 

Non sequitur. This is not a policy ruling. This is an individual ruling - as I've said. You will fail to excise prudent inclusion of articles of faith in rendering wise judgement to willing parties - as you should.

 

It's one day a week. He doesn't even need to listen to the sermon. He could just wear headphones.


On an unrelated note, I'm surprised that so many atheists these days are actually more obnoxious than religious fanatics.

 

No, it isn't. This defendant is clearly willing, and I've already explained how this kid could object to this sentence on that exact grounds and win - but he isn't going to. He could, in fact, claim that his religion is FSM, and attend Chef-Boyardee service instead.

Yes he would. That completely defeats your point as a consequence.

In this arena, I believe that there is no such thing as an 'expert'; simply a matter of debating opinion. I have mine; it's strong.

No, he hasn't. He has rendered a verdict with a sentence. That is not a law. Law is something which must be imposed equally on all. Not so with sentences; they are uniquely individual.

 

I can demonstrate how it would be more effective in preventing such an occurance BEFORE his release. And I think also that deterrent would be burned into his mind thereafter, and the rest of the community as well. Public safety is not served by letting negligent killers walk. That should be more important than putting Jesus in one kid's heart (assuming that even happens).

 

Making church or religious services an option to something else that’s supposed to instill better behavior would have been fine but ya that part seems wrong

 

Unless he doesn’t mind that bit and doesn’t bother appealing

 

Again, the definition of church is a place of worship. I'm sorry yoh don't like that, go to Webster dictionary and (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) to them about it.

 

^^^lefty who gets it.

A sentence is not unConstitutional if it does not violate the rights of the sentenced. Since incarceration 'violates' the rights of a normally free person, it is silly to claim that a sentence that includes participation in religious activity that the defendant already believes in is any Constitutional violation.

This case is a great example of how many liberals and atheists have misunderstood exactly what is and is not legally allowed in this country.

 

Yes you could - and I could also demonstrate how the Death Penalty would be more assurance than 10 years in prison - so that clearly isn't the point, and establishes that the criteria for sentencing is a matter of judgement.

That, you see, is why there's a judge involved.

Certainly - and if you were judge, that is - doubtless - what would have happened. That doesn't mean that what this judge did isn't the proper course of action, and judging from the reaction of the victim's family, I strongly suspect that this judge got it right.

The kid needs the Death Penalty.

In all seriousness, you're doing nothing more than arguing the circumstances of the danger of the incarcerated, as any prosecutor would. Danger of flight/danger to society/etc. If the judge felt that there was any kind of risk in that happening, I'm sure he would have rendered a different verdict. As it is, this kid is going to have to endure constant testing. I find this sentence refreshingly innovative and rehabilitative.

 

Well, we must disagree on this point. I am libertarian as you know, so I am against the draconian prosecution that goes on in places like Oklahoma for crimes with no victim (drug crimes mostly). But in a case with a clear victim who was victimized to the greatest extent, actually killed, I believe we should be very harsh. There are thousands of people in Oklahoma prisons right now who robbed no one, killed no one, didn't even punch someone in the nose. But this kid walks. Unbelievable.

 

Thanks for clarifying.

 

only if the boy is tossed in jail cause he missed a day of Jail.. er I mean Church


.

 

Dpn't get me started on this Serfin... Boils my (*)(*)(*)(*)! One of the most devisive things that could we could do,.

 

You keep saying that this kid 'walks', but he didn't. He has to fulfill specific criteria, and do so for many years. In addition, the wishes of the victim's family likewise has to be taken into consideration. You don't know all the details of the case; just what has been reported - and neither do I. I am, however, reacting to the feedback from the victim's family, and this sentence appears to satisfy them.

That's good enough for me.

 

You know (*)(*)(*)(*) well this kid got off easy compared to other people his age who have been convicted of lesser crimes, such as possession of marijuana.

And if the judge knew the family like someone on this thread claimed, he should have recused himself.

 

So? That doesn't mean that one of those kids couldn't have had the same sentence from a judge, nor would it have been something which should have merited any more complaint.

I'm assuming that 'knowing' means 'learned enough about them during the course of the trial', because clearly a prior relationship should have resulted in recusal.

 

Exactly. My cousin is in an Oklahoma prison right now for that very thing on a 5 year sentence. A crime where the state can point to NO person and say "here is the victim". The judge didn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about the wishes of any family. "Public safety" was a good enough reason to imprison him, but a killer? Oh noooo. Let's just send his ass to church. Lemme ask you, if Jesus can stop you from drinking, couldn't he also keep you from smoking pot? Justice my ass.

 

I'm all for creative justice solutions for cases that merit it (such as what Ted Poe did in Houston in some cases, like holding a sign saying "I shoplifted" in front of the Walmart), but driving drunk and killing someone isn't one of them, not when people are convicted of lesser offenses like a gram of marijuana.

"Knowing" is different than "knowing about" or "knowing of." Knowing means you have developed a relationship with. Someone should have used better language if that's what they meant.

 

You cannot force someone to attend church. It doesn't matter what crime they have committed, you cannot force a person to go to church especially if they don't even believe in God!