Support NeoGAF

[WHOAguitarninja]

First of all, I want to say that I am not arguing for the sake of arguing. And I honestly meant no offense to anyone with my remarks, especially what you found appalling about a person practicing their own religion in their cell. These folks committed crimes. There are repercussions for that, namely jail time in this instance. They are privileged to even have the opportunity to partially carry out their sentence by attending a worship service. If you refuse the privilege, that's OK, that's your choice in this case.

No one is being forced to do anything here. They brought down the sentences on their own heads by committing crimes. My point would still stand if the original story had included any other religion than Christianity. No one can take away the right a person has to practice their religion at its core. You can pray silently wherever you want, it doesn't matter with what religion you affiliate yourself.

Okay well that's better but it still sounds to me as if you're saying worship service is somehow an okay substitute for jail time.

Jail isn't meant to be primarily rehabilitative, and church isn't primarily meant to be punitive.

Quoted because I don't think I could've put it any better. Suggesting that their sentence be lessened if they do something religious is not in any way shape or form any better than suggesting their sentence be longer if they don't. Criminals that chose not to worship should be sent to do whatever criminals do...in their cell. If a person is found guilty of a crime, and sentenced to jail, the options should not be

a)go to jail and don't pray
b)pray and stay out of jail

they should be

a)go to jail and don't pray
b)go to jail and pray

 

[ronito]

Why stop here with drug abusers? Why not open it up to murderers and rapists, too? Why not say to them "you can other go to jail or hear the good book?" They are, after all, convicts just like our friendly pious drug abusers. Why shouldn't they be entitled to something "positive and uplifting" if it will turn their lives around?

I have to agree. I think the thought that sending someone off to church will cure them of drug addiction is pretty naive. Sure it will work for some people, but I doubt it'd be any better than the people that stop doing drugs because they don't want to go to prison (translation: very little). Also there is a disconnect in that I'm a pretty faithful guy, I go to church very regulary, why not go out and take drugs? I'm already doing the punishment? I said before and I'll say it again DARN ACTIVIST JUDGES! Where's Tom DeLay when you need him?

 

[Phoenix]

Okay well that's better but it still sounds to me as if you're saying worship service is somehow an okay substitute for jail time.


Quoted because I don't think I could've put it any better. Suggesting that their sentence be lessened if they do something religious is not in any way shape or form any better than suggesting their sentence be longer if they don't. Criminals that chose not to worship should be sent to do whatever criminals do...in their cell. If a person is found guilty of a crime, and sentenced to jail, the options should not be

a)go to jail and don't pray
b)pray and stay out of jail

they should be

a)go to jail and don't pray
b)go to jail and pray

The problem, in-effect, is in the creative sentencing that is becoming increasingly popular coming out of the courts. The whole system is full of these types of things. Someone caught for speeding might be offered the option to go to drivers education as opposed to paying a large fine, having points on their license, etc.

Creative sentencing violates one of the premises of our judicial system - equal treatment under the law. It should not matter what judge you get for a trial, you should be expected of a fairly close treatment irregardless of which judge you draw. Things like this are what start opening loopholes in the judicial system, because another person can have his attorney use this precedent to get a similar treatment for their client and if they don't get it - have the case tossed out entirely on appeal.

The law is what it is, the punishments are clearly defined by the legislative branch and I personally am not a fan of creative punishments except in extrodinary circumstances.

 

[Johnas]

Okay well that's better but it still sounds to me as if you're saying worship service is somehow an okay substitute for jail time.

I firmly believe that jail time is a suitable punishment for their actions. One of the main problems with America is the fact that convicts are sentenced, then have their sentences drastically shortened or get out early on parole due to "good behavior." If they were more often required to carry out their whole sentences, it would give would-be criminals a better reason to think twice prior to carrying out any given crime. Look at the rate of recidivism in this country.

I do believe that this could help some offenders, though, namely the younger ones who haven't become completely entrenched in the subculture. Perhaps only offered to first-time offenders at and under a certain age, I don't know. It's fairly obvious that the justice system in America is not doing what it should, why not try something different?

Thank you for a polite reply, by the way. I appreciate it.

 

[Johnas]

No, that's not what people are saying. That what you assume people are saying. What people ARE saying is that you just can't do this. Aside from being pretty blatantly against the founding doctrine of separation between church and state, it just undermines the entire legal system.

Why stop here with drug abusers? Why not open it up to murderers and rapists, too? Why not say to them "you can other go to jail or hear the good book?" They are, after all, convicts just like our friendly pious drug abusers. Why shouldn't they be entitled to something "positive and uplifting" if it will turn their lives around?

Why? BECAUSE IT'S A STUPID ASS IDEA.

Let me ask you something. Would you be comfortable with the idea of drug dealers walking around freely when they could have and should have been locked away for crimes that they committed just because they promised to go to mass on Sunday? I know I wouldn't.

If you would read Post #43 (my post) I explain that I was addressing a different issue when I made my very first post. The gist of my position is that these criminals are complaining at any offer of leniency when they really don't deserve the option to start with. When you commit a crime, you give up certain rights. The fact that they are given any sort of option is sheer grace on behalf of the judge, for them to go and whine about it is completely ridiculous.

Also, please read my previous post.

 

[Phoenix]

If you would read Post #43 (my post) I explain that I was addressing a different issue when I made my very first post. The gist of my position is that these criminals are complaining at any offer of leniency when they really don't deserve the option to start with. When you commit a crime, you give up certain rights. The fact that they are given any sort of option is sheer grace on behalf of the judge, for them to go and whine about it is completely ridiculous.

Also, please read my previous post.

This part of the argument is very valid. There are actually cases related to this where people convicted of a crime and offered 12-step go to the program, say their first amendment rights are violated and then go and sue the district that gave them a break in the first place.

I think in these cases the judicial system should say "you know what, you're right - the judge shouldn't have given you a break of this type and you really should go to jail.. SEIZE HIM!"

 

[WHOAguitarninja]

I firmly believe that jail time is a suitable punishment for their actions. One of the main problems with America is the fact that convicts are sentenced, then have their sentences drastically shortened or get out early on parole due to "good behavior." If they were more often required to carry out their whole sentences, it would give would-be criminals a better reason to think twice prior to carrying out any given crime. Look at the rate of recidivism in this country.

I do believe that this could help some offenders, though, namely the younger ones who haven't become completely entrenched in the subculture. Perhaps only offered to first-time offenders at and under a certain age, I don't know. It's fairly obvious that the justice system in America is not doing what it should, why not try something different?

Thank you for a polite reply, by the way. I appreciate it.

We're on somewhat similar pages then, but out of sheer curiosity, what leads you to think that the judicial system isn't working?

EDIT - I guess it would've helped had I looked up recidivism before I posted that, nevermind, haha.

 

[Cubsfan23]

There's a town in Kentucky called London?

yep, it's 2 hours away from me