[quote]ironcross wrote:
This makes NO sense. Considering the population, many of the people in jail probably already did go to Church before they ended up in jail.
When I went to Church, I saw kids at the Church engaging in every sort of behavior that you’d expect other kids to. Some did drugs, some slept with each other, some got each other pregnant, some didn’t do any of those things, some graduated with top grades from the top universities in the area, some didn’t get past 10th grade, some waiting until marriage to have sex, some went to jail, and everyone prayed for all of the people and situations that I just mentioned.
There is no evidence that Church is useful in preventing re-offense. None. I think the only program I’ve seen proven to lessened re-offense was the program where prisoners trained dogs.[/quote]
Correct. But I tell you this, I would take the church option if presented. [/quote]
Anyone would.
Church once a week > Community Service > Jail
It really isn’t much of a choice.[/quote]
So I think the issue here is a lack of concern about whether or not the proposed idea is useful in preventing re-offense. How come that was skipped right over and people are instead concentrating on whether or not it’s constitutional? If the right thought-process was in place to begin with, this idea wouldn’t have made it past the drawing board. [/quote]
That is a very good point. Simply being forced to attend church will not change behavior. People have to want to reform and have to be given a reason to change other than they will be slightly inconvenienced.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
This makes NO sense. Considering the population, many of the people in jail probably already did go to Church before they ended up in jail.
When I went to Church, I saw kids at the Church engaging in every sort of behavior that you’d expect other kids to. Some did drugs, some slept with each other, some got each other pregnant, some didn’t do any of those things, some graduated with top grades from the top universities in the area, some didn’t get past 10th grade, some waiting until marriage to have sex, some went to jail, and everyone prayed for all of the people and situations that I just mentioned.
There is no evidence that Church is useful in preventing re-offense. None. I think the only program I’ve seen proven to lessened re-offense was the program where prisoners trained dogs.[/quote]
Correct. But I tell you this, I would take the church option if presented. [/quote]
Anyone would.
Church once a week > Community Service > Jail
It really isn’t much of a choice.[/quote]
So I think the issue here is a lack of concern about whether or not the proposed idea is useful in preventing re-offense. How come that was skipped right over and people are instead concentrating on whether or not it’s constitutional? If the right thought-process was in place to begin with, this idea wouldn’t have made it past the drawing board. [/quote]
“It’s a partnership where pastors would monitor attendance and offenders would have to check in . If it works, the the department and local clergy believe the idea could save money and restore lives”
So, it’s not even “Church or Jail” it’s particular churches or Jail. So if somebody already goes to church, but doesn’t belong to these denominations (something tells me they are ALL evangelical Christian), and doesn’t want to, then they have to instead clean vomit out of cop cars and pressure wash garbage trucks…
There’s no way this is constitutional…
Of course, most people don’t realize that ‘separation of church and state’ isn’t actually in the constitution. It is only one interpretation. So if you have a strict constitutionalist judge, this could hold up.
[quote]ironcross wrote:
This makes NO sense. Considering the population, many of the people in jail probably already did go to Church before they ended up in jail.
When I went to Church, I saw kids at the Church engaging in every sort of behavior that you’d expect other kids to. Some did drugs, some slept with each other, some got each other pregnant, some didn’t do any of those things, some graduated with top grades from the top universities in the area, some didn’t get past 10th grade, some waiting until marriage to have sex, some went to jail, and everyone prayed for all of the people and situations that I just mentioned.
There is no evidence that Church is useful in preventing re-offense. None. I think the only program I’ve seen proven to lessened re-offense was the program where prisoners trained dogs.[/quote]
Correct. But I tell you this, I would take the church option if presented. [/quote]
Anyone would.
Church once a week > Community Service > Jail
It really isn’t much of a choice.[/quote]
So I think the issue here is a lack of concern about whether or not the proposed idea is useful in preventing re-offense. How come that was skipped right over and people are instead concentrating on whether or not it’s constitutional? If the right thought-process was in place to begin with, this idea wouldn’t have made it past the drawing board. [/quote]
They should cancel all the options.
[/quote]
Depends on the crime… Presumably, these are 2 - 3 rd misdemeanors, not breaking and entering. So technically, this could range from possession of marijuana to 2 -3rd DUI, to wreckelss driving. We’re not talking hardened criminals here. My guess is half the people that would qualify should not have been arrested in the first place.
Careful what you wish upon others, it could be you.
[quote]pat wrote:
My guess is half the people that would qualify should not have been arrested in the first place.
Careful what you wish upon others, it could be you.[/quote]
Nah. Unless being high or being drunk while driving can spontaneously inflict people without cause.
Well, my real objection was to the establishment of secularism by the state. That is if the religious options are ultimately canceled. By offering a menu, but discriminating against religious choices through deliberate exclusion (remember, this a menu including secular options) the state has a preference with respect to religion…secularism.