Church or Jail

[Tacit Blue]

(Reuters) - Officials in Bay Minette, Alabama delayed a new program that would allow some nonviolent offenders to choose church over jail after a civil liberties group objected.

The "Operation Restore Our Community" initiative was slated to begin this week, but the southwest Alabama city's legal team will take another look after the American Civil Liberties Union sent a cease-and-desist letter Monday.

Bay Minette police Chief Michael Rowland said he expects the criminal diversion program to be approved within weeks.

"There is no question it is within the purview of the law," Rowland told Reuters on Tuesday. "It's not about trying to save anybody. It's about giving them access to community resources that can help them make better choices in their lives."

I'd rather goto church! And of course the ACLU is already calling it unconstitutional Would any of you LEO's be interested in having a similar program implemented? I'm sure some criminals would take advantage of it, for others it might work!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/27/us-crime-alabama-church-idUSTRE78Q6KA20110927

[axel4488]

Idk if that is an option for people of the christian faith, then there needs to be an option for others, agnostics, atheists etc

[Tacit Blue]

Idk if that is an option for people of the christian faith, then there needs to be an option for others, agnostics, atheists etc

They said its a church of their faith, or choosing.

[axel4488]

ok but then what about the people who do not believe in religion? Do they not have a choice?

[Tacit Blue]

ok but then what about the people who do not believe in religion? Do they not have a choice?

Good point, sorry I missed that earlier. If you were atheist then I guess your going to jail . But in all seriousness, wouldn't you rather take church even if you didn't have a belief?

[axel4488]

No I would rather turn this around and force them to give me that same opportunity or face even more suits for not giving me the same option as others.

A church is a prison in my eyes. I hate them all with a passion.

[760practicalshooter]

Seems like a good idea! I hope it turns people around and has good statistics to prove it works. No matter the faith involved.

[SoCalDep]

What would you suggest as a choice for agnostic or athiests? Military or community involvement of some sort? I don't really see the problem and I'm agnostic. It's an option and if one doesn't wish to partake, that is their choice. Societal political correctness and this socialistic idea of fairness rather than opportunity is going to strangle the good out of this country.

[axel4488]

but this option is the exact opposite of the separation of church and state. What I am saying is the Judicial systems needs to see peoples punishment on the same crime equally. No easy breaks for people who would opt for church, and none for who dont go.

[Cali-Shooter]

No I would rather turn this around and force them to give me that same opportunity or face even more suits for not giving me the same option as others.

A church is a prison in my eyes. I hate them all with a passion.

The idea behind a church is that you go voluntarily, where as for jail, they'll take you in (if you've been convicted), whether you want to or not, with you kicking and screaming if they have to.

[johnthomas]

For criminals of any or no faith, this is a no brainer, a win win no matter how you look at it.
What is a non-violent crime? Drug dealing or addiction? Thieves? Check scammers? Identity thieves? For the community, this is a cancer. Putting criminals amongst good well meaning folks amounts to letting a wolf loose in a herd of sheep. You break the law, go to jail, your choice, your life, your prize for going that path. This does breach the line between church and state.

[Tacit Blue]

For criminals of any or no faith, this is a no brainer, a win win no matter how you look at it.
What is a non-violent crime? Drug dealing or addiction? Thieves? Check scammers? Identity thieves? For the community, this is a cancer. Putting criminals amongst good well meaning folks amounts to letting a wolf loose in a herd of sheep. You break the law, go to jail, your choice, your life, your prize for going that path. This does breach the line between church and state.

Some of the criminals in jail don't view their time as a 'punishment' they adjusted themselves to being in a controlled environment. It serves as a rehab and a chance to meet connections and such. The argument with the separation of church and state is borderline grey. In this instance the Police Chief is giving them a secondary option, he isn't forcing anyone to attend. Which would be clearly a violation of that clause. The state, and county/city isn't imposing anything against their will. The supreme court hasn't even made a opinion or ruling on this yet.

If you want the criminal record and don't mind paying the courts. Taken option A), if you intend on transforming yourself in a better citizen or at least INTEND to. Take option B). Should be as simple as that. They should prob also place them on probation for option B) also.

[GlockBlocker]

Church as community service makes no sense to me. If that was in place all over the country, then wouldn't it make sense to have a "<insert last week's Gangland topic here> Congregation of Faith".

I don't know the whole story, but reading between the lines I'm thinking the objective is more to un-crowed the jails to make space and save money, rather than make the criminals better people.

All non violent crimes can't be grouped together. I wouldn't care that much if some random person was in jail for drug use, let out early, and started using drugs again (it doesn't affect me), however I would care about becoming a theft victim of someone who got released early when they were in jail for theft in the first place.

Decriminalizing things that Alabama would feel comfortable sending people to church for vs jail seems like a more direct solution. I'm not saying legalize drugs, maybe some, I'm conflicted on that topic myself, but deal with it in fines and community service in the first place, not jail.

[wash]

Sweet, my church is all about week long, clothing optional end of the world parties!

[Kestryll]

but this option is the exact opposite of the separation of church and state.

Might want to reread the 1st Amendment before throwing out a term that does not exist in the Constitution.

There is no 'separation of Church and State' clause.
There IS an Establishment Clause and that's all it really is.
It is called that because of the wording in the First Amendment, here is the relative part:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

These 16 words that address religion are the focal point of the Establishment Clause:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Notice how it does NOT mention a separation but only states very clearly what the Government CANNOT do.

Actually the essence of the Establishment Clause is the prevention of a State mandated religion (see: Church of England) and the assurance that the freedom to exercise your religion could not be hampered or regulated by the Government.

There is no 'separation of Church and State' or 'wall of separation' in the Constitution and the the one reference of it is nearly always used out of context. It was in a letter by Jefferson to a CHURCH, said to assure them that the Government would not try to quash their religion.

This was the letter in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association in reply to a letter from them addressing concerns that their religious freedoms were not seen as immutable but instead as privileges granted by the legislature - as "favors granted." Jefferson wrote that the assure them that their right to their religious view and the expression of them would be protected from governmental intrusion, not to bar their views from the government.

Let's look at the whole paragraph that famous line comes from:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

Jefferson seems far more concerned with preventing the government from limiting or adversely affecting citizens expression of their faith and their religious views then he was about limiting the citizen.

Again, both the Amendment and the Danbury Letter have to be seen in their historical context. The 'bogyman' that drove many to America was the Church of England. Join and believe by order of Law.
This is what the Founders strove to prevent and set checks in place for, not to protect State from religion but to protect religion from State.