Jesus or Jail?

I'd say it's more fucked up simply because of how many people are in it and what little it takes to land one in prison.

But we've drifted quite a bit off topic here.

You have a hardon for justice. These people have a hardon for "justice."

Well, I would say that this would just make it worse.

Should I take this as a compliment...?

Oh wait, nvm, I forgot some of your comments in other threads. Nvm.

Anyway, this thread feels like it's derailed from its central purpose.

I don't get it...

Probably has, since, you know, when you throw a losing proposition to an echo chamber, well...

"This" as in the topic "this"?

I don't see how it could considering it could only reduce the amount of people that go to jail if it had any effect (no, this is not a catch all phrase regarding I think the plan here is a "good idea" and if you treat it as such, I will cut you.)

...yes, it will reduce the people going to jail.

Because, you know, they'll be getting off with a slap on the wrist and then they'll be right back to it, but now knowing how to avoid arrest entirely...

Oh go play Batman :P

Tomu@Mind if I play Catwoman with you.

Also I still think a better punishment would be to send them to the fire and brimstone churches.

I would be a terrible Batman. I'm more of an Iron Man, personally. Or perhaps a Spider Man. Still, I couldn't do Batman...

Alright, the thread has officially devolved into comic book references (largely due to yours truly <_<)

Anyone have anything to say? Or should we get the thread locked or something.

Thread Hop: It would depend on the jail; however, I'd like to think that I'd risk punishment, rather than bow to the wishes of the authority.

edited 30th Sep '11 10:36:22 PM by tropetown

Tomu@Lets Lock It Up and Thow Away the Key My Good Man.

Now for some music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpzV_0l5ILI

edited 30th Sep '11 10:37:01 PM by joyflower

You DID read the article, right? And realize this option is only for first time offenders for non-violent crimes?

Sure. What better for a first-time offender than to learn that the criminal justice system is nice, soft, and squishy, and also to learn how the procedure goes?

It's just another step in the CSI Effect, except instead of teaching them how the forensics work, we're teaching them that the system is both incompetent and easy to circumvent...

edited 30th Sep '11 10:40:15 PM by USAF713

…So when they commit their non-violent crime, potentially accidentally, and are told they get a slap this time, but are facing jail or a fine if they do something similar they’ll be compelled to break the law again?

Why not? Since, you know, when you go under the assumption that a year in church is going to convert someone entirely, I imagine the police will get complacent. "No, officer, why would I, a good Christian, ever do such a thing?" "Alright, son, we'll go find some other evil heathen who could have done it, because we believe you."

Exaggerated? Yes. However, when we've decided that "rehabilitation" will amount to churchgoing, well...

This plan has 99 problems, but being too soft-on-crime ain't one.

I keep seeing people suggest this as a reason, yet the article seems to indicate that wanting to save money and Churches actually suggesting this as a way for them to stay active in the community .

It’s possible this is some huge gambit to grab the odd non-Christian in the community who thinks Church for a year is better than whatever fine, but that seems unlikely that the city council would discuss it in such a way and that they wouldn’t mostly just get Christians (their big majority) into going to Church.

It's actually more likely that it's a way of the Church trying to impose its will on Christians that simply aren't churchgoers as a way of "commanding the flock."

See, I can buy that. I'm not saying money and wanting to participate in the community have nothing to do with it, but I find that aspect WAY more likely then an attempt to snare the odd non-believer.

It amounts to the same thing, in my mind.

The church does not have any legally mandated control over its own members.

Either way, at the end of the day it violates the Establishment Clause, so into the nuclear furnace of unconstitutional legislation it should go.

I'm actually still very curious as to WHICH church, or if it's the choice of the offender. I could see this program going along swimmingly if it's their choice if that's the case. Until a non-Christian graced the court room, of course. Then it might very well cause another national stir that would get MUCH more focus now that an actual person was involved.

As previously mentioned, local judges have a lot of leeway with sentences, it looks like. And "Going to Church" as part of a sentence has happened before. This whole situation could be far too tiny for the constitution to be able to mandate what happens.

Though the concern seems to be why it's not in place yet and they're checking with a higher authority on the matter.

edited 1st Oct '11 2:11:27 AM by Justice4243

But won't.