Kid Gets Convicted of manslaughter convicted to go to church.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**hotsauceman1**

To be honest, Mass can be worse than most prison sentences.
Now, I get the other things in the article, there was no Malice or hatred, but forced to attend church?
http://www.mommyish.com/2012/11/19/church-sentence-for-manslaughter/

How is it possible that an actual United States judge sentenced a teen facing a manslaughter conviction to go to church? I’m not sure how it could happen – but it did.

The situation that led to the conviction and subsequent sentence, is one of those awful stories no parent ever wants to hear. From Tulsa World News:

The defendant, Tyler Alred, 17, was behind the wheel of a Chevrolet pickup about 4 a.m. Dec. 3 when he crashed into a tree on a county road east of Muskogee. His friend and passenger John Luke Dum, 16, of Muskogee died at the scene.

Although not legally drunk – he was given two breath tests, which, at 0.06 and 0.07, fell below the legal 0.08 blood-alcohol threshold for legal drunkenness – he was underage and, as a result, considered to be driving under the influence of alcohol.

Alred was charged with manslaughter as a youthful offender. He pleaded guilty in August, with no plea deal with prosecutors to govern his punishment.

What a nightmare for both families – especially the family that lost a child. The family of the boy that died expressed remorse – not anger – over the whole horrible ordeal. ”We don’t need to see two lives wasted for a mistake,” Dum’s sister, Caitlin, wrote in a statement. The defending attorney was quoted by the Muskogee Times making a plea to the judge. “I usually represent outlaws, and criminals. This is a kid that made a mistake. Judge, I think he’s worth saving.”

Judge Mike Norman agreed, and instead of sentencing him to prison time, gave him a 10- year deferred sentence. In order to stay out of prison, Alred will have to graduate from high school; graduate from welding school; take drug, alcohol and nicotine tests for a year; wear a drug and alcohol bracelet, participate in victim’s impact panels, and attend church for the next 10 years.

All of that other stuff makes sense – but you lost me at attending church. Alred doesn’t have a problem with that part of his sentence. He already attends church every Sunday. But again – what? How is it possible that in the United States of America we are weaving religious activities into law enforcement? Separation of church and state is a real thing, isn’t it? Apparently not in Oklahoma.

The kid was already attending church regularly. Clearly it did nothing to stop him from acting irresponsibly and committing manslaughter. If church magically cleared people of all stupidity and instantly “reformed” them – well, let’s just say the religious right would look a lot different.

This is insane. Alred is apparently already a Christian, but what if he wasn’t? What if he came from a family of Atheists? Could the law still force him to go to church? This may seem like one small case from one small town, but I don’t think it should go unnoticed.

Read more: http://www.mommyish.com/2012/11/19/church-sentence-for-manslaughter/#ixzz2CimYqLC0

**chickenbgood**

... What the

??

There is so much wrong with this.

**Ratbarf**

Eh, the kids who go to Church tend to not drink as much. Plus when they sentence you to AA meetings that's pretty much sentencing you to church.

**Kanluwen**

chickenbgood wrote:
... What the ??

There is so much wrong with this.

No there's not.

Judges can use their discretion when handing down sentences in cases like this and they do take the wishes of the victim's family into account as well.

In this case, the victim's family seems to have had sympathy for the defendant. The judge took that into account and handed down a deferred sentence, which means that if Alred violates any part of the conditions set down he will face prison time.

**purplefood**

He already goes to church...
Clearly the not drinking thing because as much you go to church has failed somewhat...

**Mannahnin**

Concur with the article writer. Every part of this makes sense except a secular court sentencing someone to attend church, in a country where our Constitution forbids the government from promoting any religion.

**azazel the cat**

Ratbarf wrote:Eh, the kids who go to Church tend to not drink as much.

Citation please.

Anyway, this is not a new issue. There have already been multiple appeals launched in just about every state against the practice of sentencing offenders to AA, which is a Christian organisation that requires a belief in God as part of its 12-step (which has never been found to work any better)

**Kanluwen**

Mannahnin wrote:
Concur with the article writer. Every part of this makes sense except a secular court sentencing someone to attend church, in a country where our Constitution forbids the government from promoting any religion.

I kind of wonder if it might be something being left out to be honest, on the part of the article writer.

I can't see a judge simply saying "attend church, like you always do!" but I can see a judge requiring volunteer hours at churches.

Especially makes sense given that Alred was also given, as part of his sentence, a requirement to participate in "victim's impact panels".

**whembly**

azazel the cat wrote:
Ratbarf wrote:Eh, the kids who go to Church tend to not drink as much.

Citation please.

Anyway, this is not a new issue. There have already been multiple appeals launched in just about every state against the practice of sentencing offenders to AA, which is a Christian organisation that requires a belief in God as part of its 12-step (which has never been found to work any better)

I concur on citation too...

The Catholics at least don't shy away from alcohol during church functions...

**Dreadwinter**

Ratbarf wrote:
Eh, the kids who go to Church tend to not drink as much. Plus when they sentence you to AA meetings that's pretty much sentencing you to church.

This is one of the most incorrect things I have ever read.

**Fafnir**

Mannahnin wrote:
Concur with the article writer. Every part of this makes sense except a secular court sentencing someone to attend church, in a country where our Constitution forbids the government from promoting any religion.

I concur.

What if the kid was a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or an atheist?

**Mattman154**

Fafnir wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
Concur with the article writer. Every part of this makes sense except a secular court sentencing someone to attend church, in a country where our Constitution forbids the government from promoting any religion.

I concur.

What if the kid was a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or an Atheist?

Exactly! Perhaps my church is Xbox live, where the sermons are always loud and passionate.

**Fafnir**

Well, if he were an atheist, he'd be a godless heathen who would be condemned to Hellfire no matter what anyway, so it wouldn't matter, but what about the ones that did matter?

**MeanGreenStompa**

Oh, I don't think this is so bad, other countries do this sort of thing, Iranian Sharia courts for example...

**Compel**

And so he layeth the smackdown upon the noob and all cried out "I am the pwnage" then his work was done.

**Kanluwen**

Found another article here

Anybody who knows Oklahoma District Court Judge Mike Norman probably yawned at the news that he'd sentenced a teen offender to attend church as part of his probation arrangement, and that the judge's pastor was in the courtroom at the time.

Not only had he handed down such a sentence before, but he'd required one man to bring the church program back with him when he reported to court.

"The Lord works in many ways," Norman, 69, told ABC News today. "I've done a little bit of this kind of thing before, but never on such a serious charge."

Norman sentenced Tyler Alred, 17, Tuesday after he pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter in August for killing friend and passenger John Luke Dum in a car crash.

Dum died on impact in December after Alred crashed his Chevrolet pickup truck, ejecting Dum. Alred was 16 at the time of the crash and had been drinking prior to the deadly accident.

Oklahoma Highway Patrol issued a Breathalyzer at the time, and although Alred was under the state's legal alcohol limit, he had been drinking underage.

The judge could have sent Alred to jail but, instead, taking into account his clean criminal and school records, sentenced him to wear a drug and alcohol bracelet, participate in counseling groups and attend a church of his choosing - weekly. He must also graduate from high school.

To avoid jail time, Norman gave Alred a maximum 10-year deferred sentence.

He'd never passed down the church-attendance requirement for someone as young as Alred, said Norman, who has worked as a district Judge in Muskogee for 14 years.

"It's not going to be automatic, I guarantee you," Norman said of the church sentence on future manslaughter charges. "There are a lot of people who say I can't do what I did. They're telling me I can't legally sentence someone to church."

Alred's lawyer is not among the critics. "I usually represent outlaws and criminals," defense attorney Donn Baker told the Muskogee Phoenix . "This is a kid that made a mistake. I think he's worth saving."

In the courtroom this week, an emotional scene between the victim's family and Alred played out after statements from Dum's mother, father and two sisters were read during the sentencing. Dum's father and Alred stood up in court, turned toward each other and embraced one another.

"At that moment, it sure became a reality to me that I would sentence this boy to church" to help set him on the right path, Norman, a member of First Baptist Church in Muskogee, said. "There's nothing I can do to make this up to the family.

"I told my preacher I thought I led more people to Jesus than he had but, then again, more of my people have amnesia. They soon forget once they get out of jail."

After completing the rest of the requirements in his sentence, Alred will have the charge removed from his record.

"Only time will tell if we've saved Tyler Alred's life," the judge said.

Honestly:
I don't see a problem with this. I really don't. I'm not a religious person, but I think that the condition of "sentencing someone to church" as part of the overall conditions of a deferred sentence is not that far fetched.

Now, if he sentenced a Buddhist to go to Catholic services I'd see an issue.

**sebster**

Yeah, it seems pretty on the nose to make church attendance part of the conditions of his suspended sentence. I mean, what if the boy involved wasn't a church goer, and refused that part of the conditions? If he graduated highschool and welding school, passed every alcohol and nicotine test given to him, was an excellent participant in every victim's impact panel he attended... should he be sent to prison for failing the church attendance part?

Oh, and for interest sake, here in Australia the legal limit for alcohol is 0.05, and young driver or mature he would have gotten pinged when he blew 0.06.

**Kanluwen**

If you can't make time to attend church once a week to avoid jail time, you really need to rethink your priorities.

**Frazzled**

Should have shot him on the courthouse steps as a warning to others about drinking.

**Fafnir**

Kanluwen wrote:
If you can't make time to attend church once a week to avoid jail time, you really need to rethink your priorities.

That's not the point.

**Kanluwen**

Fafnir wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
If you can't make time to attend church once a week to avoid jail time, you really need to rethink your priorities.

That's not the point.

No, the point is that people are up in arms over what is clearly the same kind of sentencing as community service.

I've also been looking for other sources/more information about the judge himself and came across Yahoo's article about this which makes this mention which establishes the answer to "What would happen if the teen was Hindu/Jewish/Hindu?"

The judge could have sent Alred to jail but, instead, taking into account his clean criminal and school records, sentenced him to wear a drug and alcohol bracelet, participate in counseling groups and attend a church of his choosing - weekly. He must also graduate from high school.

**purplefood**

He already goes to church though...
It's not like it's much of a punishment...

**Kanluwen**

The point of a deferred sentence isn't simply to punish.

It is to essentially impose a "Sword of Damocles" over the individual with a threat of punishment if circumstances are not met.

**Mannahnin**

If you know that the person is a member of a religious faith, and you sentence them to attend services of that faith, then it's certainly not as offensive as it would be if the kid were Buddhist or Jewish or something and the judge sentenced him to attend Baptist services.

I still don't think it's an appropriate use of governmental authority, to enforce attendance of any church. In fact I think a pretty flagrant violation of what in the founders' time they used to call "Freedom of Conscience".

**Inquisitor Ehrenstein**

Mannahnin wrote:
Concur with the article writer. Every part of this makes sense except a secular court sentencing someone to attend church, in a country where our Constitution forbids the government from promoting any religion.

I'll argue that he can start his own church and it's legit. Under freedom of religion, it has to be. The judge can't force him into a particular religion.

**Kanluwen**

Mannahnin wrote:
If you know that the person is a member of a religious faith, and you sentence them to attend services of that faith, then it's certainly not as offensive as it would be if the kid were Buddhist or Jewish or something and the judge sentenced him to attend Baptist services.

Yeah. The "church of your choosing" definitely makes it clear that the judge is used to handing out alternative sentencing, which I think is a good thing.

I still don't think it's an appropriate use of governmental authority, to enforce attendance of any church. In fact I think a pretty flagrant violation of what in the founders' time they used to call "Freedom of Conscience".

That's actually an interesting perspective to consider for it.

I'd argue though that it is being used in the context of a "moral framework".

**SlaveToDorkness**

Clearly someone who read a biased "I'm outraged!!!" article on the Internet knows more about this case than the judge.

**LoneLictor**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Clearly someone who read a biased "I'm outraged!!!" article on the Internet knows more about this case than the judge.

Alright, what does the Judge know that we don't that makes it okay to sentence someone to 'Church'?

**azazel the cat**

Yeah, I'm sure the whole 'church' element has more to do with the idea that the offender's own community wants to help him keeping on the straight & narrow, and I'm sure it was something that was offered up as a potential sentencing alternative as part of a meeting between the prosecutor and defense counsel.

I like to believe that if the offender was an athiest, then attending a 'community center' would have been just as likely an option.

**Mannahnin**

One would hope; although the second article suggested maybe not.