Serve Time In Jail...Or In Church?Follow

You're confusing my argument with someone else, probably Gbaji. I argued that you should NOT be complaining about any alternate choice because you should not be given a choice to begin with. That includes giving/receiving BJs. It absolutely does not matter what the alternate choice is because you shouldn't have an alternate choice in the first place.

The only exception I see is paying a fine vs jail time. Only because I don't think everything deserves jail time, but if you don't have the money to pay the fine, then you should still pay somehow. In that case, it's only jail time.

I didn't say that. I said that not every crime deserves jail time. As a result, a fine a sufficient way out. At the same time, not everyone has the money to pay for a crime that isn't worth doing time. So, what do you do?

No where did I imply that rich people CAN'T or SHOULDN'T spend time in jail. If the law requires jail time, then it requires jail time. I'm specifically talking about the crimes that do not warrant jail time.

What Ugly said, sloppy wording on my account.

Every once in a while you say something so incredibly stupid that it blows all of your other stupid remarks out of the water. Congratulations on having done so one more time.

Exactly. Yet that hasn't stopped several people from simply assuming that the whole thing is a christian-only option.



Key phrase "in the USA". This is a local law in a smallish city/county. It only affects those living in said county, not everyone in the USA. For it to affect those living elsewhere, their own cities/counties/whatever would have to adopt something similar and would be free to include all those other organizations "in the USA" as applicable to the location they are at.

Which was another point I made several posts ago. At the risk of mentioning a broader philosophical approach to governing, this is why conservatives favor small/local government over big/national government. Each area can have different rules and you get to pick and choose which ones you want to live under. This isn't some nationwide law being proposed here, yet many of you seem unable to discuss the issue while assuming it has some larger ramifications that affect your own lives.

Bit of an excluded middle there, don't you think? It's not called "The United States of America" for nothing. We're supposed to allow each state to largely do its own thing. Surely, deciding how best to punish and/or rehabilitate prisoners falls squarely within the "up to each state" concept.

And there are few areas in which those powers are more clearly separated than in the criminal justice system. There are clear demarcations as to whether one has committed a federal, state, or local crime, and three completely separate legal systems, with different laws, different courts, and different penal systems at each of those levels which we use to handle those crimes.

I think the Union can handle a county jail adopting a release program for its inmates which doesn't match what every other county, and every other state, and the federal penal system are doing.



The 10th amendment disagrees with you. Anything which is not a federal crime falls to the states. Anything not a state crime falls to the local municipality. If you're in county jail, it's because whatever you did *isn't* a violation of state or federal law. Which is why the county gets to decide how it punishes those in its jails (as long as that punishment itself does not violate federal or state laws of course).



Because the 10th amendment agrees with me.

Edited, Oct 3rd 2011 6:55pm by gbaji

Except that they aren't completely separate. You are able to move a case into federal courts from state courts.

To give him credit, I doubt he'll make the boneheadedly stupid argument that "the establishment clause only applies to Congress!" like most of the conservatives I know. Odds are instead he'll just dance, scarecrow, dance.

You completely missed the point. I wasn't for having another option to begin with. That's why I said that I don't care if the other option is a bj. I don't believe you should have an option. HOWEVER (comma) I do believe that monetary fines are acceptable forms of punishment. The obvious downfall is that not everyone can afford fines, so there HAS to be an alternate. Once again, that alternate is irrelevant.

I take fault for not being as clear as I should have at first, but it's not jail time or fine, but pay a fine....oh you don't have any money, then I guess you have to go to jail/community service/church/whatever, etc. The only way you could disagree is if you are against monetary fines.

Er? There's some debate as to whether the establishment clause applied to states, not because of the "Congress" reference, but because the 14th amendment (which is what's used to apply many rights at lower levels than mentioned explicitly in the Bill of Rights) is often argued only to extend individual rights and doesn't really apply to the clause in question. Um... But that's not what I'm arguing anyway, so it really doesn't matter.

The establishment clause in this case prohibits the preference of one religion over another by the state. As I have stated many times, this is only a problem if there is some actual process in place which prohibits church organizations other than those some nefarious group wants from participating. So far, not one person has shown that such a prohibition exists. If any organization which classifies itself as a "church" legally can choose to participate in this program then it does not violate the Constitution (assuming the requirements to be a church aren't themselves prohibitive of course).


No one's shown that this is the case. Joph mentioned that the list of participating churches were all Christian, but is that because other churches are barred? Or just that other churches didn't choose to participate or aren't present in the area for other reasons? Unless there's some legal force that prevents an organization from moving into the area, establishing themselves as a church and participating in the program, then any claims that this violates the constitution are just wild speculation.

Sure. In cases where its practical to do it that way (like chasing a suspect across county lines), you're correct. But where the charges are filed, which court the trial is held, and which jail someone spends time in are not just subject to whimsy. The default cases are pretty clearly demarcated. You're arguing the exception, not the rule.