ACLU Files Complaint after Teen Sentenced to 10 Years of Church Attendance

  • Share
  • Read Later

Jose Luis Pelaez / Getty Images

If offered the opportunity to sit in church instead of in jail, most people would probably opt for a little extra piety. But when an Oklahoma judge offered that alternative to a 17-year-old facing manslaughter charges, the American Civil Liberties Union was less than impressed. According to Tulsa World, the ACLU filed a complaint Tuesday against a Muskogee, Okla., judge’s decision to include the religious requirement as a stipulation in the teenager’s deferred sentence.

In November, Tyler Alred was sentenced to 10 years’ probation for his involvement in an alcohol-related car accident last year that killed his 16-year-old passenger. Alred, who was classified as a “youthful offender,” pleaded guilty to manslaughter charges in August, Tulsa World reported. According to the Oklahoman, Alred confessed to drinking but tested below the legal alcohol limit at the time of the crash. He was, however, still considered to be driving under the influence because he was underage.

The teen avoided jail time when District Judge Mike Norman handed down a decade-long probation term in tandem with several other requirements, including that he attend church regularly, wear an alcohol-monitoring ankle bracelet, participate in drug and alcohol assessments, finish school, undergo counseling and contribute to speaking events warning against drunk driving, NBC News noted.

(MORE: Articles of Faith: Will a Slew of Overturned State laws Galvanize the Christian Right?)

Alred’s defense attorney, Donn Baker, told Tulsa World in November that he did not intend to fight Norman’s ruling. “My client goes to church every Sunday,” Baker reportedly said. “That isn’t going to be a problem for him. We certainly want the probation for him.”

The District Attorney’s Office will be responsible for monitoring Alred’s churchgoing. Assistant District Attorney Jim Carnagey told the Oklahoma paper that Norman has ordered similarly religious requirements before. “If someone wants to appeal my decision, they’re entitled to do that,” Norman told Tulsa World after he delivered the sentence.

The ACLU of Oklahoma has now taken up that challenge. In its filing with the Oklahoma Council on Judicial Complaints, the organization argues that the church attendance stipulation infringes on the principle of religious liberty and violates the Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct rule that judges must “uphold and apply the law.”

“It is shocking that a judge would so blatantly ignore the First Amendment, which at minimum prevents the government from forcing church attendance and from interfering in deeply personal matters of faith,” Ryan Kiesel, the executive director of the ACLU of Oklahoma, said in statement.

(MORE: The Fall of Mass Attendance but Not U.S. Religiosity)

Kiesel told Tulsa World that the ACLU “didn’t file this complaint lightly.”

“Judge Norman’s decision to give this defendant a choice between church and prison cannot be enforced without illegal government intrusion into a young man’s conscience,” Brady Henderson, the ACLU of Oklahoma’s legal director, said in the organization’s statement.  “Not only is this inconsistent with our nation’s fundamental guarantees of freedom of worship, it is also offensive to the very religion it is meant to advance. Acts of faith should come from a freely-made choice to adopt a faith, not from the government giving its citizens an ultimatum to sit either in a pew or a prison cell.”

Henderson told the Oklahoman that Alred himself has not expressed concern over the church provision.

Judge Norman spoke to the Oklahoman in November and said he would stand by his decision. He did, however, say he had received some phone calls complaining that the sentence breached the U.S. Constitution.

“They may well be right, but that’s what I did, and we made a record,” he said to the paper.

Keisel said the Council on Judicial Complaints will make a recommendation to the Court on the Judiciary about the next steps against Norman.

MORE: Perspective: Why Did Conrad Murray Get Just Four Years In Jackson’s Death?

5 comments
JitterbugPerfume
JitterbugPerfume

Beyond the constitutional sticky wicket, this ruling puts the church in an odd position of reporting to the state his attendance. Why should the pastor be forced to be a probation officer by proxy?

MichaelTyler
MichaelTyler

Church and state are separated in the United States; this judge's ruling is grossly unconstitutional, and must be overturned. 

imofanopinion
imofanopinion

The states need to uphold the separation of state and church.  I wonder if this person was of a faith other then say Chrisitanity if the same sentence would have been offered?? 

It is not up to the courts to see that people attend church each week.  There are many people that hold their own faiths and are good people but do not attend church.  For the judge to believe that going to church makes for a good citizen astounds me.  Serial killers, child abductors, pedophiles, wife beaters, rapists, thieves and others are also church goers. 

Does not matter that the young man already attends church...it is not the judges right to insist he continue to do so.  When I read this a few weeks ago I knew someone would oppose this.  I support the UCLA in this case.  Kudos to them.. do remember the first amendment gives people the "freedom" of religion.  That means what faith one chooses to follow and how they choose to do so, or if they even chose not to follow any religious beliefs.   

rpearlston
rpearlston

Good for the ACLU!  Not only have they hit the nail on the head with the concept that this ruling violates the First Amendment, but they've also made the point that not everyone has been raised in a church-going family, or indeed, that not every family is christian of any denomination.  That's what makes this part of this judgement so vile - it doesn't begin to take into account anything except this particular judge's religious POV.  

That said, I have no problem with the rest of the sentence handed down to this young man.  It's appropriate for his age, his BAL and his crime.  The conviction alone stigmatizes this young man, will keep him from ever voting (not all countries do that) and could well limit his future education and therefore, the rest of his life.  And how much more will he have to be punished for this, considering that there will not be a day that goes by for the rest of his life that he won't seriously regret what he did?  NO one can punish him more than he will punish himself.  If you don't believe that, then you must speak with Dany Heatly (NHL) or Josh Brent (NFL).

Greekgeek
Greekgeek

Well, there is a pretty little mess.

It is clearly against the Constitution, but the defendant himself doesn't mind.

Hm.

Isn't there some simpler way to wrist-slap the judge for violating the Constitution, tell him, "naughty naughty -- don't do that!" and move on?