Jesus or Jail?

And here's a thought:

You say if someone's already a church goer, they shouldn't be able to opt into the plan. But doesn't that unfairly discriminate against church goers?

I meant less in a "Christian only" and more of a "Pick your denomination" if things where to be national.

If this option where to be implemented at a NATIONAL level, I think the conversation would be very different. If it stays locally, they may get to avoid getting a constitutional wack, if it it grows as big as the state it would likely HAVE to include all denominations or it would simply be thrown out. The fourteenth would certainly come into play at the state level. The FIRST amendment would come into play if things went national.

edited 30th Sep '11 4:24:11 PM by Justice4243

The bill of rights applies equally to the states, except where it's specifically talking about powers divested to the states vs the federal government.

And it's not enough to have all denominations represented. You have to have a secular option. Period. I'm fine with minor favoritism (letting churches have a pass despite not technically meeting the qualifications) just because that's the reality of how these things work, but you can't create a system that's basically intentionally designed to send people to places of worship.

See, I actually thought this was more interesting view to take while pointing out the potential flaw in the plan.

If one already GOES to church, they're not being punished. So they don't get the "Church" option. So, as you or someone else mentioned, it could mean LESS people going to church if they where afraid of committing a crime.

I suggested community service as the probably not AS attractive as Church option, but still a third option. I don't believe this is somehow "makes it ALL alright", though my reason for musing on this subject is that "fines" also can unfairly benefit the well-off, so perhaps another convoluted option may make the whole system slightly fairer.

"Fairer" sort of subject to what exactly is going on in a community.

Also, I'm fine with a secular solution in addition to the other groups. I was hoping my vocabulary carried that across, I guess not.

edited 30th Sep '11 4:24:46 PM by Justice4243

Your vocabulary carries the idea that it would be ideal to have a secular option, but it denies the necessity of a secular option.

I was speaking nationally or even at a state level just then.

An Alabama community of ~8,000 people? Not going to hold my breath on that one.

edited 30th Sep '11 4:28:30 PM by Justice4243

The only problem is that the American legal system relies so much on precedent that if it's ok to have it at a local level without a secular option the law won't be required to provide one at a state or national level.

Well, courts don't respect the decisions of lower courses necessarily. It's that if it goes to the state, then yeah, that sets the precedent and it'll be put into place elsewhere in the state.

Wooo Alabama.

I already pointed out that they WOULD have to deal with the constitution level. If the law gets any bigger, it might very well fail because of the unfeasibility of communities like the one we're talking about being able to provide for secular law breakers.

edited 30th Sep '11 4:31:18 PM by Justice4243

An unconstitutional law isn't constitutional just because some lower court upholds it you know-it's just yet to be properly reviewed.

<Sokal Legal Burger>

It's not that a lower court could magically deem it "constitutional" in this case, it's that if this issue stays at it's current level (below state, congress) and say...isn't even a law (It's part of some community program, I have no idea if that counts as a law) it may simply be under the radar of what we're talking about.

Judges have made plenty of weird rulings INCLUDING sentencing people to church.

Though some of these sentences get the Judges in trouble, hence why I think they're taking the time to actually see if this strictly legal.

I feel obliged to point out that the man sentenced to Church in that story was back on trial 10 months later for 3 different violent crimes.

And I feel obligated to point out that a single instance does not accurately gauge the effectiveness of attempting that on a much larger scale.

Right, but by the same logic, a single instance showing some guy being sent to church and never committing a crime ever again also doesn't prove the position's case.

It's just one data point in one direction, as opposed to a data point in the other direction.

edited 30th Sep '11 5:09:40 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

But no one is discussing a real or hypothetical case where on man went to Church and was suddenly a model citizen.

My point was "insufficient data" not "Churches are MAGICAL behavior modifiers."

And so we must research this insanity thoroughly.

Or go with my plan of turning everyone into gophers at Buddhist monasteries. You know. Whichever.

edited 30th Sep '11 5:15:26 PM by Aondeug

Honestally, i think we should just bring back prison labor. make em do community service and give them on-the-job training so they have less reasons to commit crime.

Penal labour was apparently very open to abuse. THREE GUESSES AS TO WHICH STATE HELD IT THE LONGEST, AND THE FIRST TWO DON’T COUNT!

Apparently, Alabama DID reinstitute chain gangs TOO! in Jolly old 1995.

Chain gangs were reintroduced by a few states during the "get tough on crime" 1990s, with Alabama being the first state to revive them in 1995. The experiment ended after about one year in all states except Arizona, where in Maricopa County inmates can still volunteer for a chain gang to earn credit toward a high school diploma or avoid disciplinary lockdowns for rule infractions.

inmates can still volunteer for a chain gang to earn credit toward a high school diploma

edited 30th Sep '11 5:31:12 PM by Justice4243

Gotta get that GED somehow :P

...werid, but at least there doing somthing productive for there free meals and lodging.

We're derailing a bit, but I am pro utilizing Prisoners as a cheap form of labor to keep them busy and help society.

Ah, there we go, the proper name seems to be Work release program.

Jails have them too, as evidence by this article where an inmate clogged a toilet to temporarily escape.

Kinda detrimental to my point, but even if the added chance of inmates escaping, I'm pro this option. Obviously their guards need to be on the look out for such things, and we probably don't want convicted rapists, murders or, people who eat people and steal their faces. Though I think we can allow the odd well behaved probation violator or shoplifter to do some work.

Work release programs are largely inoperable today because the unions got them legislated away on the basis of "unfair competition," which wasn't exactly an lacking-in-merit claim, but was true more because of abuse of the system and less because of it being inherently unfair...

Seems to be a lot of abuse of systems involving inmates going around if these links are any indication. :/

The US Prison system is inherently fucked up because we view jail as a sort of divine mandate, so people who have a hardon for authority and "justice" are driven to the system.

I "have a hardon" for justice, and I still think the justice system is fucked up...