Here’s a case that brings up some intriguing questions: as a condition of a youth’s probation for a driving-related manslaughter conviction, an Oklahoma judge sentenced him to attend church regularly for 10 years. The New York Times reports on the details of the case:
The 17-year-old defendant, Tyler Alred, was prosecuted as a youthful offender, giving the judge more discretion than in an adult case. Mr. Alred pleaded guilty to manslaughter for an accident last year, when he ran his car into a tree and a 16-year-old passenger was killed.
Although his alcohol level tested below the legal limit, because he was under age he was legally considered to be under the influence of alcohol. Mr. Alred told the court that he was happy to agree to church attendance and other mandates — including that he finish high school and train as a welder, and shun alcohol, drugs and tobacco for a year. By doing so, he is avoiding a 10-year prison sentence and has a chance to make a fresh start.
This sentence certainly seems to challenge the separation of church and state, and the ACLU is seeking sanctions against the judge…but is it a bad idea?
The judge believed that both the offender’s and victim’s families were satisfied with the sentence; the article reports his view of the outcome: “‘I am satisfied that both the families in this case think we’ve made the right decision,’ and noted that the dead boy’s father had tearfully hugged Mr. Alred in the courtroom. If Mr. Alred stops attending church or violates any other terms of his probation, Judge Norman said, he will send him to prison.”
Given the few details we have on this case, I think it’s fair to speculate that Mr. Alred – the young offender – was friends with the 16-year-old victim who was riding in his car with him. Being responsible for a friend’s death is a heavy, heavy burden to carry regardless of the state-imposed punishment. I’ve known a couple of young men serving prison sentences for similar crimes, and the guilt seems to be a separate entity that they will carry for a lifetime. I wish we could hear from the victim’s family to better understand their thoughts on the situation and the sentence, but it may be that these unusual conditions of parole may actually “save” a second family’s son.
What do you think? Is sentencing an offender to church all that much different than requiring parole/probationers to attend 12-step programs like AA? If the young man fulfills the conditions of his probation and stays out of prison, should it be considered a success? Why or why not?
Comments 10
Joe — November 25, 2012
Even with a political stance strongly against the mixing of government and religion, I find it hard to take issue with this. If the defendant had appealed the sentence, I'm sure he would have had no trouble getting it thrown out. As an aside, if an appeal did happen and the argument that the Establishment Clause has no authority over a non-federal judge ultimately won out, then I would be much more concerned about the gravity of this. But I think that "what-if" train of thought is irrelevant, because I could hardly imagine any defendant appealing this sentencing (at least not on the basis of the nature of the sentence itself). I don't think it's a stretch to say that even the most militant atheist would object to this only on principle; it is certainly not a harsher (and to that extent, perhaps even more lax) a punishment than the traditional alternative.
All in all, I think it is far less dangerous for secular laws to have religious penalties than for religious laws to have secular penalties, and this case is an example of the first.
Meghna — November 25, 2012
I believe sentencing an offender to church is much different than requiring parole/probationers to attend 12-step programs like AA. Each provides a unique experience. For all we know, the young man might attend church on a regular basis and sentencing him to church would not be much of a “punishment” or a new learning experience. In addition, 12-step programs like AA are trained to teach, discipline, and ensure accidents like these do not happen again. From what I know, churches do not go through this type of training.
I also believe that religion and state should never be mixed. If the offender believe in another religion or did not believe in a religion at all, it would be unfair to sentence the offender to church rather than to the common programs in place to deal with situations like this. Once one judge starts mixing church and state, that can lead to a slippery slope in which other judges start doing so based on this single example.
If the young man has no objections and fulfilled the conditions of his probation while staying out of prision, this could be considered a success. The end goal is clearly achieved but the means to achieving that end does not seem appropriate. I believe it is more appropriate to rely on and use systems that are trained in the area to deal with these situations.
Edith — November 26, 2012
Feels like a quite rewarding. Can't complain I am to stumble upon your article. I was able to generate some fruitful ideas in your own composition. You write a extremely suggestive and educative point that a number of internet browsers are checking on. I am assuming want you to keep on posting when you are such a masterlyon it field. Thank you so a good deal. I am excited to read simple things your next post relating to this part.
Kat — December 2, 2012
I am ambivalent on this one. Based on the actual case, I would say mandatory church attendance is not an overly harsh punishment option, but my principles say otherwise. On principle, I am strongly against the combination church and state. Part of the problem with our judicial system is compromising principles on a case by case basis. I am a believer in the structuralism of a judicial system and think that church should not be used as a punishment. I don't necessarily agree that a 10 year incarceration would have been appropriate, but the prosecution of manslaughter is a different discussion.
BG — December 2, 2012
It would have been simple to require the education, training, and avoidance of drugs and alcohol and instead of requiring church attendance, require that the young man meet weekly with a mentor for guidance and counseling-- and then name the pastor or a trusted church leader as a mentor, with the idea that the young man could then swap the mentor for a teacher or a professional counselor if he left his faith or something. Since the purpose of the weekly meetings would then be counseling and guidance and NOT religious education, it would not violate church and state and would be similar to religious programs like AA that are acceptable because their primary function is not the teaching of religion.
The concept of community supported rehabilitation is valid. The execution? Terrible. I hope this young man doesn't have a crisis of faith in the next 10 years, which also happen to be the 10 years of a person's life when they transition from childhood to adulthood-- to independent thought as well as other independence. If he suddenly becomes an atheist, or can't find a church he agrees with, what will happen? And what if he joins a religion whose houses of worship are not technically called churches, like Judaism? Are services there okay?
Michelle Inderbitzin — December 2, 2012
Thanks so much for the thoughtful comments, everyone - I had mixed feelings about this case, and I love reading the different perspectives in this discussion. Much appreciated.
Haylee — December 4, 2012
I love this idea. Despite the argument of the separation of church and state, I feel like mandated church is a great step, especially for a youth. I think it will be an enlightening experience for the young man. If we as a society can rehabilitate without prison, I think we should take the necessary means to do so. Considering it was probably a friend of his that he killed, I'm sure the guilt is punishment enough and that Mr. Alred wants to change his ways. Church will also be really helpful for him to learn to forgive himself and to stay on an honest path.
Taylor — December 7, 2012
I also believe mixing church and state can be a very bad idea. However, this kind of sentence might not be a bad idea for someone as young as a 16 year old depending on the details of the situation. This post does not give many details about what happened. However, I cannot see a problem if the victim’s family found this sentence acceptable. It might be a pretty light sentence but this young kid might deserve a fresh start and maybe the judge considered living with the guilt is enough. However, this might not be a good sentence if the kid is not religious in any way. Whether or not the punishment is an appropriate one, there’s always the possibility he would not take the services seriously and just attend church as part of his punishment. It might also be important to note that some religious institutions might not necessarily be in favor of this. Church might not be viewed in the best light if it is seen as a form of punishment for people. However, the opposite view would be that church would help rehabilitate a person, however this would only apply if the person attending takes the service seriously and there is no way to really enforce that aspect of the punishment. Overall, I’m unsure of whether or not this is a good idea to mix church and state like this. I guess I do not have a problem with it if it’s not used very often and only in cases where many might consider the person deserves a second chance such as this kid.
nike blazer — July 15, 2013
nike blazer femme pas cher