A judge presiding over Allred's case sentenced him to attend church every Sunday for the next 10 years. In addition to church attendance Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year.

I can't stand the Fark atheists as much as the next guy, but how is this legal? I understand that the kid was 17, stupid, drunk, and deserves another chance, but doesn't requiring church attendance violate something?

And I'm speaking as a practicing Catholic. I'd be pretty irritated if I had a criminal sentence handed down that made me go to church for 10 years. What if I want to change religions?

Lsherm: What if I want to change religions?

You restart from zero days completed.

Is this real life?

Lsherm: A judge presiding over Allred's case sentenced him to attend church every Sunday for the next 10 years. In addition to church attendance Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year.

I can't stand the Fark atheists as much as the next guy, but how is this legal? I understand that the kid was 17, stupid, drunk, and deserves another chance, but doesn't requiring church attendance violate something?

And I'm speaking as a practicing Catholic. I'd be pretty irritated if I had a criminal sentence handed down that made me go to church for 10 years. What if I want to change religions?

I understand the concept of separation of church and state, but honestly this is a heck of a lot better than 8 years (or is it 10?) in prison. The judge didn't specify which church, did he (article doesn't say)? If the kid is Christian already then I don't see how this sentence violates his 1st amendment rights.

Actually, it seems more of a free pass for such a crime. I had a friend get drunk and commit manslaughter when he was in college. Spent 10 years in jail. Would rather have seen him do 10 years of mandatory religious participation. Would have done him and society a lot more good than sending him to jail for 10 years. I think that's the most important point, this sentence acts in the best interests of society. The kid gets a second chance, we don't pay for him for the next several years, and he can grow up to become a productive member of society.

gonna get raped either way.

Clearly cruel and unusual punishment

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Clearly cruel and unusual punishment

Especially if it's a Catholic church.

ksdanj: Is this real life?

Or is it just fantasy?

Can I get prison instead?

Lorelle: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Clearly cruel and unusual punishment

Especially if it's a Catholic church.

Yeah... I'd rather do time myself

Nofun: Lsherm: A judge presiding over Allred's case sentenced him to attend church every Sunday for the next 10 years. In addition to church attendance Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year.

I can't stand the Fark atheists as much as the next guy, but how is this legal? I understand that the kid was 17, stupid, drunk, and deserves another chance, but doesn't requiring church attendance violate something?

And I'm speaking as a practicing Catholic. I'd be pretty irritated if I had a criminal sentence handed down that made me go to church for 10 years. What if I want to change religions?

I understand the concept of separation of church and state, but honestly this is a heck of a lot better than 8 years (or is it 10?) in prison. The judge didn't specify which church, did he (article doesn't say)? If the kid is Christian already then I don't see how this sentence violates his 1st amendment rights.

Actually, it seems more of a free pass for such a crime. I had a friend get drunk and commit manslaughter when he was in college. Spent 10 years in jail. Would rather have seen him do 10 years of mandatory religious participation. Would have done him and society a lot more good than sending him to jail for 10 years. I think that's the most important point, this sentence acts in the best interests of society. The kid gets a second chance, we don't pay for him for the next several years, and he can grow up to become a productive member of society.

I know, but say the kid wants to be an atheist? The ruling violates the first amendment right off the bat.

What if he wants to be a Rastafarian? would the Judge allow that? I would choose the church of Satan myself.

Don't worry, kid, the state is just establishing church for you. Perfectly Constitutional.

SpikeStrip: gonna get raped either way.

Over in five. Nothing more to see here folks.

Honorable Ardent Parishioner presiding

Wow, just wow.

The teen's attorney does not plan to challenge the sentence.

Then the teen's attorney is a dumb fark.

/Meanwhile, the ACLU will be all over this one.

Nofun: Lsherm: A judge presiding over Allred's case sentenced him to attend church every Sunday for the next 10 years. In addition to church attendance Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year.

I can't stand the Fark atheists as much as the next guy, but how is this legal? I understand that the kid was 17, stupid, drunk, and deserves another chance, but doesn't requiring church attendance violate something?

And I'm speaking as a practicing Catholic. I'd be pretty irritated if I had a criminal sentence handed down that made me go to church for 10 years. What if I want to change religions?

I understand the concept of separation of church and state, but honestly this is a heck of a lot better than 8 years (or is it 10?) in prison. The judge didn't specify which church, did he (article doesn't say)? If the kid is Christian already then I don't see how this sentence violates his 1st amendment rights.

Actually, it seems more of a free pass for such a crime. I had a friend get drunk and commit manslaughter when he was in college. Spent 10 years in jail. Would rather have seen him do 10 years of mandatory religious participation. Would have done him and society a lot more good than sending him to jail for 10 years. I think that's the most important point, this sentence acts in the best interests of society. The kid gets a second chance, we don't pay for him for the next several years, and he can grow up to become a productive member of society.

The article doesn't say, but it could be more like probation or a suspended sentence. I'd rather see a kid this age not have a criminal record, finish school, have a chance to go to college and, hopefully, not repeat the mistake. The judge did make finishing high school and ten years of clean drug and alcohol testing a requirement, as well as ten years of church attendance--all of which would be probationary requirements (clean drug testing, school, maintain ties to the community). Since the attorneys are not complaining, I suspect that if the kid violates any of these requirements, he gets to go to jail.

I'm as pro-1st Amendment as anybody here; but really, I've got no problem with this. Assuming there's a provision for the kid changing religions or doing community service later if he prefers...why the hell not? Better than making a felon out of a 17-year old.

Santo Daime

It could probably be easily challenged and overturned. But then he gets a jail sentence. He's not challenging the ruling because this means he's basically off scot-free

Of course, sitting him in a pew is much more productive and beneficial than having him do community service or charity work. Thank God they aren't godless commies who believe in things like helping others.

Nofun: I understand the concept of separation of church and state, but honestly this is a heck of a lot better than 8 years (or is it 10?) in prison. The judge didn't specify which church, did he (article doesn't say)? If the kid is Christian already then I don't see how this sentence violates his 1st amendment rights.

Doesn't matter if he's Christian already. The ruling restricts his freedom to practice his religion as he sees fit, which is the very antithesis of the 1st amendment. All he has to do is miss one Sunday, and he has himself a Supreme Court case (if he doesn't already).

Does he get to choose which church? Because that would be awesome.

If he appeals and wins, his sentence will be thrown out, and then what? A new sentence? Instead of 10 years of church you get 10 years in prison kid, good luck!

I'd suffer through the Sundays if the alternative was prison, whether it be constitutional or not.

IlGreven: The teen's attorney does not plan to challenge the sentence.

Then the teen's attorney is a dumb fark.

/Meanwhile, the ACLU will be all over this one.

The ACLU already made a statement, which boiled down to "Gee, OK...we're all for your religious rights and all, but we're a little disappointed in you." They didn't seem especially upset.

Hrm, how bout that religion some prisoners came up with where they had to be served steak and wine?

jimmyego: Lsherm: What if I want to change religions?

You restart from zero days completed.

Do not anger His Noodleness!!

borg: What if he wants to be a Rastafarian? would the Judge allow that? I would choose the church of Satan myself.

Church of the Norse god of amiable agreement, Hoki Doki.

It preaches not being a dick and sleeping in on Sundays.

As long as they can spell the court documents correctly, it shouldn't be a problem... right?

/[Tencommandments.jpg]

Kid was born White. Lucky lucky.

I think I'd rather just go to prison.

Lsherm: I know, but say the kid wants to be an atheist? The ruling violates the first amendment right off the bat.

No it doesn't.

The kid is Christian now. He's been sentenced to go to Christian church for ten years.

I can't sentence an atheist to church. I might sentence them to AA, though, and that's legal even though step two makes dumb people angry.

Just give it up man. Your fake outrage ain't helpin' anyone.

How did he get off so lightly? Instead of being angered by being sentenced to church attendance, I am livid over a drunken 17-year-old who ends up killing his 16-year-old passenger being sentenced to being a good kid for ten years. This is madness!

I do not believe in imprisoning people for its own sake, but clearly there was a huge crime here and a person died as a result. Being "sentenced" to what many people do out of maturity is not justice.

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Does he get to choose which church? Because that would be awesome.

Yeah, this kid could open up a troll-tastic can of worms if the judge didn't specify. The kid could join the Raëlian Church, for example, and get sexed up with alien cherubim every Sunday.

I look forward to the inevitable Follow-Up.

Lsherm: Nofun: Lsherm: A judge presiding over Allred's case sentenced him to attend church every Sunday for the next 10 years. In addition to church attendance Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year.

I can't stand the Fark atheists as much as the next guy, but how is this legal? I understand that the kid was 17, stupid, drunk, and deserves another chance, but doesn't requiring church attendance violate something?

And I'm speaking as a practicing Catholic. I'd be pretty irritated if I had a criminal sentence handed down that made me go to church for 10 years. What if I want to change religions?

I understand the concept of separation of church and state, but honestly this is a heck of a lot better than 8 years (or is it 10?) in prison. The judge didn't specify which church, did he (article doesn't say)? If the kid is Christian already then I don't see how this sentence violates his 1st amendment rights.

Actually, it seems more of a free pass for such a crime. I had a friend get drunk and commit manslaughter when he was in college. Spent 10 years in jail. Would rather have seen him do 10 years of mandatory religious participation. Would have done him and society a lot more good than sending him to jail for 10 years. I think that's the most important point, this sentence acts in the best interests of society. The kid gets a second chance, we don't pay for him for the next several years, and he can grow up to become a productive member of society.

I know, but say the kid wants to be an atheist? The ruling violates the first amendment right off the bat.

A judge can say what he wants. That portion of the sentence wouldn't hold up on appeal. It'll likely just get dismissed, effectively reducing his sentence.

borg: I would choose the church of Satan myself.

The Church of Satan is an atheist organization.

I don't think they have regular weekly meetings in many locations, if at all.

Gyrfalcon: The article doesn't say, but it could be more like probation or a suspended sentence. I'd rather see a kid this age not have a criminal record, finish school, have a chance to go to college and, hopefully, not repeat the mistake. The judge did make finishing high school and ten years of clean drug and alcohol testing a requirement, as well as ten years of church attendance--all of which would be probationary requirements (clean drug testing, school, maintain ties to the community). Since the attorneys are not complaining, I suspect that if the kid violates any of these requirements, he gets to go to jail.

I'm as pro-1st Amendment as anybody here; but really, I've got no problem with this. Assuming there's a provision for the kid changing religions or doing community service later if he prefers...why the hell not? Better than making a felon out of a 17-year old.

I could not agree less. I think it's so unfair to the victim that this kid won't spend a day behind bars for killing another human being. You talk about this like he just got an MIP or a speeding ticket, like it's some mistake he can just hit the undo button on. He farking killed someone. It's permanent. He made the decision to drink and drive - he deserves to live with the consequences, not get some slap on the wrist punishment from an idiot Bible-thumping judge. If tossing him in jail had ruined his life and followed him for the rest of his life, so be it - he should have considered that before he got behind the wheel. Personally, I think its a travesty of justice that he's still walking the streets and that he won't have to answer for it down the road. No idea how this judge can hand down this type of sentence and look the victim's family in the eye. As it is, the judge let the guy get off basically scot-free.

And I get so farking tired of all the Fark DUI apologists. How hard is it to not farking drink and drive? I understand the apologists even less in a case like this, where the guy farkING KILLED SOMEONE. But, oh, DUI laws are just so harsh!!!!! The poor drunk driver!!!! How will he ever get his life together, especially if he kills someone! Gosh, it sure couldn't be the drunk driver's fault!!!!

And as for the sentencing - how are you people not horrified that the judicial branch of government compelled a citizen to attend religious services??? The ACLU better be all over this shiat. It's an outrageous abuse of judicial power regardless of your beliefs (or lack of belief), and all the more audacious since the kid won't spend a day in jail for taking another human life in one of the most selfish, irresponsible ways possible.

lousyskater: I think I'd rather just go to prison.

No you would not. If it was a choice between 10 years in prison and 10 years of being drug-free and losing a couple of hours every Sunday going to Church, you'd go there even if you do not believe in what is being said/done there. To say otherwise is b.s.

Glad to see all the Fark lawyers are up and busy working tonight.

Allred must graduate from high school and take drug and alcohol test for the next year. 

Spend a year taking a test and they should supply drugs.

velvet_fog: I could not agree less. I think it's so unfair to the victim that this kid won't spend a day behind bars for killing another human being. You talk about this like he just got an MIP or a speeding ticket, like it's some mistake he can just hit the undo button on. He farking killed someone. It's permanent. He made the decision to drink and drive - he deserves to live with the consequences, not get some slap on the wrist punishment from an idiot Bible-thumping judge. If tossing him in jail had ruined his life and followed him for the rest of his life, so be it - he should have considered that before he got behind the wheel. Personally, I think its a travesty of justice that he's still walking the streets and that he won't have to answer for it down the road. No idea how this judge can hand down this type of sentence and look the victim's family in the eye. As it is, the judge let the guy get off basically scot-free.

And I get so farking tired of all the Fark DUI apologists. How hard is it to not farking drink and drive? I understand the apologists even less in a case like this, where the guy farkING KILLED SOMEONE. But, oh, DUI laws are just so harsh!!!!! The poor drunk driver!!!! How will he ever get his life together, especially if he kills someone! Gosh, it sure couldn't be the drunk driver's fault!!!!

This seems to be a case of (to use the judge's religious bend) loving the sinner but hating the sin.

The judge is forcing the kid to contemplate what he has done, and walk a tightrope. It used to be the prison system was for reformation and penance, to provide a way to correct the behavior. The judge is saving two lives from being ruined while forcing responsibility, understanding, and self realization seemingly in hopes of correcting the flaws in the criminal and make them a productive member of society.

So you morons think sending this kid to prison for years would be better than making him attend church...

Another quandary: if this kid has to take drug and alcohol tests for the next year, is he therefore restricted to the grape juice communion denominations only?

CuttySupreme: So you morons think sending this kid to prison for years would be better than making him attend church...

For everybody who isn't this idiot in TFA? Yes.

buckler: IlGreven: The teen's attorney does not plan to challenge the sentence.

Then the teen's attorney is a dumb fark.

/Meanwhile, the ACLU will be all over this one.

The ACLU already made a statement, which boiled down to "Gee, OK...we're all for your religious rights and all, but we're a little disappointed in you." They didn't seem especially upset.

Yeah, if you're taking a case to the Supreme Court, this isn't exactly the one you want to go in front of the court with. When an organization like the ACLU wants to take a certain topic in front of the Supreme Court, they wait for a case with the best PR value possible. One that is as hard as possible to rule against. This is... not that case.

Serious response: Well, that's blatantly unconstitutional, and a violation of long-established international human rights to practice one's religion as one sees fit to boot. Who let the guy that failed third-grade civics grow up to be a judge?

Actual Weeners: Well, can't be less effective than AA.

ExcaliburPrime111: lousyskater: I think I'd rather just go to prison.

No you would not. If it was a choice between 10 years in prison and 10 years of being drug-free and losing a couple of hours every Sunday going to Church, you'd go there even if you do not believe in what is being said/done there. To say otherwise is b.s.

PREACH IT, sir!

IlGreven: The teen's attorney does not plan to challenge the sentence.

Then the teen's attorney is a dumb fark.


Why? The teen's attorney's responsibility is to get the kid the best deal possible, not to fret about the separation of church and state.

He could have gotten jail time or 2000 hours of community service. Instead he got 520 hours of church services.

Lemme tell you about what they mean by "Toss Your Salad" in church...

doglover: borg: I would choose the church of Satan myself.

The Church of Satan is an atheist organization.

I don't think they have regular weekly meetings in many locations, if at all.

Less atheist than egoist. I've met an absurd number of people who claimed membership in the Church of Satan and surprise! They were all douchenozzles.

I don't know that I'd prefer prison over legally enforced church attendance, but if the judge was going for a deterrent, it worked on me.