Real News. Real Funny.

Comments

  • 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.
  • 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?
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Load 25 of 220 newer comments

This thread is closed to new comments.