Oklahoma Judge Violates First Amendment in Sentencing of Drunk Teen

This one really makes me angry. A judge in Oklahoma sentenced a 17 year old charged with DUI manslaughter to 10 years of church attendance as part of the deal agreed to by both prosecutors and the defense. In defense of this sentence the Judge Mike Norman has admitted to doing this in the past for child support cases as well, though this was his first time using this as part of sentencing for manslaughter. Doesn't that just make you feel warm and fuzzy all over knowing that church is going to make things all better?

Obviously this judge is unaware of the establishment clause of the constitution or he wouldn't be sentencing defendants to church attendance as part of the stipulation for sentencing. They must have stopped teaching that at law school and we must have missed them removing the separation of church and state from the first amendment. Or maybe it's just the fact that he's a judge and knows better than everybody that makes this okey dokey so no one has challenged him or his “wisdom” in his sentencing. Give me a freaking break.

Someone needs to clue this moron into the fact that what he is doing is illegal and a definite violation of defendant's constitutional rights. No judge has the right to force religion onto anyone as part of their sentencing deal. They also do not have the right to punish people for not attending church, attending the “wrong” church or anything else in cases of custody, child support or other family matters. Being a church goer does not make people better parents, just ask the kids that Elzbieta Plackowska drowned after making them pray or Susan Smith's children or any of the kids murdered, molested or abused by their insane religious parents. If anything religion is an indicator that these people are more willing to abuse their kids because their books tells them it's OK and it certainly makes it easier for people to think it's all going to be OK because their imaginary friend in the sky forgives them for the simple price of blind faith. That is giving them the easy way out, it's not punishment.

Religion is not and should not be considered a worthy characteristic of parents, none-the-less a stipulation that will make a drunk driver stop killing people or even a bad parent start paying child support. Religion should be out of the equation when it comes to sentencing. If this judge wanted to do something to make this stupid kids stop drinking and driving, there are plenty of secular recovery programs out there that could have been part of a long term sentencing agreement. Let's face it, sentencing some stupid redneck who may well already attend church to go to church is not a punishment. (Yeah, it may be a punishment if you send otherwise intelligent people who don't believe in outdated nonsense to have to sit through that mindless babble for 10 years, but it's no real punishment to send already brainwashed minions to go to the exact place they are already going in the first place.)

Back to the Oklahoma judge, he doesn't think that his sentencing will pass a legal challenge but he's not worried because both parties in the case agreed to the terms so they probably won't appeal. This makes for a real problem because for this to be challenged someone will have to show legal standing, which is going to be hard to do if none of the parties in the case see anything wrong with this. What is worse is the judge admits that what he is doing is illegal, but he knows that none of the parties involved have a problem with it so he feels he's in the clear even though he's violated his oath as a judge to uphold the laws of the land.

It really comes down to the simple truth that upholding the constitution should not be subject to the whim and personal prejudices of a sitting judge. They are not “the law” no matter how much they may delude themselves into thinking they are. Judges are supposed to be the one thing that guarantees that the laws and their integrity are maintained in the courtroom and in our society, but there are far too many out there who place their religious zeal and ignorance ahead of the secular laws they are supposed to hold sacred. If they cannot do this simple thing, they should step down from the bench and make room for someone who can and will do the job they are either elected or appointed to perform without being encumbered by religious prejudice. If they continue to egregiously ignore the constitution they should be disbarred and removed from the bench. There is no middle ground here.

The religious right complains about so-called reactionary liberal judges, but the truth is that the real threat to our liberty and the law are the reactionary conservative judges who think that their religion should be part of the judicial process. As long as judges sit on the bench who are deluded enough to think they can use their religion as part of sentencing, justice will remain a figment of the imagination.