White Conservative judge lets white kid get away with murder.

[Luv_Trail]

Strong opinionated title to this thread... but not necessarily my own.... just an observation. Some may think this white judge is just "looking out" for this white kid. Some may look at it like this kid is literally getting away with manslaughter. Others may think, who the Hell is this judge to impose any religion (most likely the judge's own) on someone? There is supposed to be a seperation of Church and State / religion and government and these friggin conservatives just don't get the picture.. its sickening.

http://now.msn.com/tyler-alred-sente...e-mike-norman/

[hotatlboi]

Murder is not the correct term. He was convicted of manslaughter. It says he got drunk and crashed his truck into someone.

While certainly negligent, that act is not the same thing as a premeditated murder.

[Telstra]

Thats not murder.

Thats just a stupid accident and its his fault.

[Luv_Trail]

murder..manslaughter... blah blah... someone died because of him... please dont stray from the main topic..

[Telstra]

Its a major difference and the judge did the right thing.

[Rolyo85]

Yeah, the main topic is worded wrong, and that is not murder.

[BostonPirate]

Sentencing someone to Church for ten years.

That sounds more like a punch line from a Bill Maher joke than a real event.

SO much for separation of church and state. Ehh... I guess it's no different then sending them to a 12 step group.

Ridiculous, but I fail to see why the race of the Judge mattered in this instance... Or why it was brought up even. Help me understand, please explain the line of thinking before I decide if I agree or not.

[Críostóir]

1. The judge had no right to make someone go to church, for any reason. Even in prison you have a right to practice your religion (there's case law establishing that), and that includes a right NOT to practice a religion.

2. It is not trivial to call something murder when it's manslaughter, not that the distinction is relevant to the issue here.

3. Do you think the judge would have behaved differently had the convict been non-white? I'm with BostonPirate; I don't see the relevance here.

[hotatlboi]

I do agree though that sentencing someone to church is absurd and really is also a violation of church state separation.

The judge should be disbarred just for that.

[GiancarloC]

Some may say the judge did the right thing, but that's absolute baloney. The judge potentially violated the separation of church and state. Since there is no direct law in favor of the separation of church and state, one will have to refer back to the Lemon test.

It's been revised to a certain degree in recent years, but the basic parts of it still exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

The judge is employed by the government and is given the authority to carry out actions under the authority of the government, so this does apply. The second reason is the biggest one here and why I think the Judge could potentially be facing certain trouble. I'm not sure if this is enough to get disbarred and removed from the bench, but he could be reprimanded.

As far as the crime itself, I don't know the specifics of the case. A drunk driving case that results in a fatality does deserve and warrant prision time.

[Kulindahr]

murder..manslaughter... blah blah... someone died because of him... please dont stray from the main topic..

It is the topic. He accidentally killed his own friend. He didn't mean to, he tried not to, but it happened anyway because he was irresponsible ahead of time.

And the church requirement isn't really an issue. The judge didn't specify which church, he just said church. The kid already goes to a church, so it's no problem for him.

Though I do wonder what Judge Norman would have done if Tyler happened to be an atheist -- the Optimist's Society, perhaps?


BTW, here's a bit more about it:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/art...ce-4041030.php


And another with more details:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2146619.html

[Kulindahr]

Some may say the judge did the right thing, but that's absolute baloney. The judge potentially violated the separation of church and state. Since there is no direct law in favor of the separation of church and state, one will have to refer back to the Lemon test.

It's been revised to a certain degree in recent years, but the basic parts of it still exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman



The judge is employed by the government and is given the authority to carry out actions under the authority of the government, so this does apply. The second reason is the biggest one here and why I think the Judge could potentially be facing certain trouble. I'm not sure if this is enough to get disbarred and removed from the bench, but he could be reprimanded.

As far as the crime itself, I don't know the specifics of the case. A drunk driving case that results in a fatality does deserve and warrant prison time.

This passes the Lemon test. The judge wanted the kid in a system that urges him to behave in a more civilized fashion -- that's the secular purpose. It doesn't advance or inhibit religion because the judge didn't specify which church -- though he's walking a fine line there; it would depend on what he would have done with an atheist, but since the kid was already attending church, that's not a problem, in fact it is right in line with what the Founders thought religion was good for: promoting good morals and citizenship. And there's no government entanglement at all.

Prison time for this? You'd send a kid to Crime University, to turn him into a bitter, trained enemy of the justice system because by negligence he killed his friend? That's not justice, it's stupidity: I've met several twenty-somethings around here who weren't really criminals, but got sent to jail or prison because of a simple mistake, and came out criminals with knowledge of how to commit all sorts of crime they wouldn't have thought of, and a few came out as members of The Race or the Aryan Nation and now persecute people they never really has any interest in before. One is a kid who kicked at a rock, and it rolled down a slope, bounced over a cliff, and hit a baby on the head, killing it. After the system turned him loose, it took him five years to get his head on straight again from the way it fucked him up and over.

No one should go to prison for manslaughter, only to therapy and probation.

[GiancarloC]

It actually fails the Lemon test. He's advocating religion, and it doesn't matter what church. Churches infer religion. There is no atheist church. If the guy was an atheist it would be a major problem. And it doesn't matter if the kid was already attending church. And since when do good morals come from going to church? Anyone can have good morals that don't have to come from church.

And yes I would absolutely send him to prison. Probably to a light security prison... and drinking while driving is a simple mistake? I guess this was a simple mistake too:

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2011/06...ver-62892.html

20 year old kills family of four.

Oh it's just a simple mistake... it happens...

And yes, prison should be an option for manslaughter as it often is. Therapy and probation isn't justice for those families who had to deal with great loss. And I'm not buying that therapy and probation will solve anything. We aren't dealing children. These are adults. 20 something year olds are told all the time about the dangers of driving while drunk... so there are no excuses. Either designate a driver, or don't drive drunk.

[TX-Beau]

Well if this kid was already going to church, obviously it doesn't work, and sending him to more is pointless.

Come on, sentencing him to church is absurd. It's wrong and if I was the kid, I'd be appealing 'cause that would be sure to go down.

Then again maybe not 'cause one might come out of that with an actual punishment.

[Críostóir]

Kulindahr, you're dead wrong here. Even if he now goes to church, making it a requirement that he KEEP going is a First Amendment violation. What if he wants to convert to Judaism? Or become a Hindu? Or a Muslim? Those aren't churches. Or what if he becomes an atheist?

No, it's just wrong and mustn't be allowed. The badness it will cause goes way beyond this one case.

[hotatlboi]

The kid already goes to a church, so it's no problem for him.

That's irrelevant. The government (of which the judiciary is a part) ordering someone to participate in a religion is a hideous violation of the first amendment.

[Kulindahr]

That's irrelevant. The government (of which the judiciary is a part) ordering someone to participate in a religion is a hideous violation of the first amendment.

Since the government didn't order him to participate in "a" religion, there's no problem. Oredering him to continue in a religion he's already in serves a secular purpose.

Though it would be fun if five years from now he decides to be, say, Eastern Orthodox. Would he have to ask the judge for permission? or could he just switch churches? That would tell us something about what the judge really means. As it is, his intent is merely moral reinforcement, something of which the Founding Fathers approved.

[hotatlboi]

Since the government didn't order him to participate in "a" religion, there's no problem.

Sure there is. Separation of church and state means the government can not force you to go to church, whether they specify which church or not. Freedom from religion is also a part of it.

[Kulindahr]

Sure there is. Separation of church and state means the government can not force you to go to church, whether they specify which church or not. Freedom from religion is also a part of it.

Secular purpose.

[hotatlboi]

Secular purpose.

Not sure I follow you.

Suppose the kid decides that religion is not for him after 2 years. The gov is essentially forcing him to continue to observe a religion against his will.

[GiancarloC]

By advocating that the kid should have been sent to church absolutely does not indicate secular purpose. There is no secular purpose by doing that. Ordering him to continue to serve in a religion suggests government entanglement in religion. And yes, atlboi is correct. If the kid decides he's not religious and doesn't want to go to church, that's a violation. This judge's ruling absolutely and totally fails the Lemon test in every way. I'm sure only Scalia would agree with him...

[Kulindahr]

By advocating that the kid should have been sent to church absolutely does not indicate secular purpose. There is no secular purpose by doing that. Ordering him to continue to serve in a religion suggests government entanglement in religion. And yes, atlboi is correct. If the kid decides he's not religious and doesn't want to go to church, that's a violation. This judge's ruling absolutely and totally fails the Lemon test in every way. I'm sure only Scalia would agree with him...

The Founding Fathers disagree.

[Críostóir]

The Founding Fathers disagree.

Why is your interpretation better than the SCOTUS'? They've ruled against this sort of thing over and over.

[GiancarloC]

The Founding Fathers disagree.

Where?

And as far as the Supreme Court, they agree with me. Again, Lemon v Kurtzman. The issue with this judge absolutely fails the Lemon test miserably.

[johaninsc]

Kuli, maybe they should sentence him to a monastary

[Kulindahr]

Where?

And as far as the Supreme Court, they agree with me. Again, Lemon v Kurtzman. The issue with this judge absolutely fails the Lemon test miserably.

No, your assumptions about what the judge is doing fail the Lemon test.

As for the Founding Fathers, their view on this has been cited often enough in this forum you've definitely read them before. They considered religion to be essential to teaching morals, and morals to be necessary for the survival of a free people.

[Kulindahr]

Kuli, maybe they should sentence him to a monastary

I guess I missed the part in the article where he's a Roman Catholic priest (or Lutheran or Orthodox or Anglican; they also have monasteries).

[GiancarloC]

No, your assumptions about what the judge is doing fail the Lemon test.

As for the Founding Fathers, their view on this has been cited often enough in this forum you've definitely read them before. They considered religion to be essential to teaching morals, and morals to be necessary for the survival of a free people.

My assumptions? It's quite clear this is a violation of the separation of church and state. and I'm not even referring to a specific religion. By sentencing him to church that judge is endorsing that religion is an answer.

Religion isn't necessary to teach morals. People who have been atheists don't need religion to be moral people. The founding fathers also thought slavery was just fine. We live in different times. They shouldn't be discredited or ignored completely, but they were living in a different time.

Let me ask this: Are you saying that religion is the ONLY way for morals to be taught?

[Kulindahr]

My assumptions? It's quite clear this is a violation of the separation of church and state. and I'm not even referring to a specific religion. By sentencing him to church that judge is endorsing that religion is an answer.

The proper response here is "So?"

Religion isn't necessary to teach morals.

So?

People who have been atheists don't need religion to be moral people.

So?

The founding fathers also thought slavery was just fine.

False.

Let me ask this: Are you saying that religion is the ONLY way for morals to be taught?

Try reading.

[GiancarloC]

The proper response here is "So?"

So?

So?

So? This suggests government entanglement in religion and the endorsement of religion... thus it fails the lemon test.

Weak argument... as expected. And no explanation on the "false" answer to the slavery point.

[Kulindahr]

So? This suggests government entanglement in religion and the endorsement of religion... thus it fails the lemon test.

Weak argument... as expected. And no explanation on the "false" answer to the slavery point.

No, it doesn't suggest any such thing. Your saying so merely shows that you're making assumptions. Try this: prove, with cites, that if the kid had been an atheist, that the judge wouldn't have sentenced him to attending Optimist Club or similar meetings.


If you don't know why your claim about the Founding Fathers and slavery is false, you're very lacking in basic education in American history. A simple reading of the debates over the Declaration of Independence and then the Constitution make clear that a majority of the participants in either case despised slavery or at best tolerated it.

[GiancarloC]

No, it doesn't suggest any such thing. Your saying so merely shows that you're making assumptions. Try this: prove, with cites, that if the kid had been an atheist, that the judge wouldn't have sentenced him to attending Optimist Club or similar meetings.

It absolutely DOES prove it. And where is your evidence that it isn't? It's nice to demand evidence, yet not to provide a shred of evidence of your own. The Judge failed miserably at the Lemon test. Sentencing anyone to church regardless of their religion is a violation of the separation of church and state. Try this: Bring some evidence showing how it's acceptable.

If you don't know why your claim about the Founding Fathers and slavery is false, you're very lacking in basic education in American history. A simple reading of the debates over the Declaration of Independence and then the Constitution make clear that a majority of the participants in either case despised slavery or at best tolerated it.

My claim about the Founding Fathers isn't false. I'm very well versed in American history. Nice try. Again, I'm not going to merely take your word at it. By the way, at one point in this country only white male property owners were allowed to vote. The poor... nope. Women? No at all! Not until the early 20th century.

First country to allow women to vote officially (and beyond minor exceptions of town hall meetings, etc)?

New Zealand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...n%27s_suffrage

This country, including the Founding Fathers, had many things very wrong for many decades. This is history. The founding fathers were a product of their time. Since then, this country has had movements and legal decisions made (such as with the Earl Warren Court and the high wall of Separation of Church and State). The Earl Warren Court would disagree with you.

[Rolyo85]

You are doing some fallacy here, Kuli, though I' m not sure which. Yes, there is no way to prove that the Judge would not have sentenced him to something else if he weren't a Christian, but considering the context of the judge himself, and the nature of the sentence, it's much more likely he would have done the same, and you know it.

And I absolutely agree that this is a total violation of the separation of church and state. You can't put church into secular laws.

[Benvolio]

The Judge did not "sentence" him to go to church. He defered sentencing for nine years, conditioned upon the kid's voluntarily conforming to certain behaviorial standards, including attending his church. Is there any evidence he objected to that behavioral standard? Usually they are worked out by agreement of the parties and the court, and often are suggested by the defendant through his counsel as a way to stay out of jail.

[GiancarloC]

The Judge did sentence him to go to church. Take a look at the article again. Church was specifically mentioned. And the guy (not a kid, he's an adult) was going to church regularly... obviously those behavioral standards didn't stop him from getting drunk and getting behind the wheel.

[opinterph]

The Judge did not "sentence" him to go to church. He defered sentencing for nine years, conditioned upon the kid's voluntarily conforming to certain behaviorial standards, including attending his church.

Your take on the matter appears basically correct.

According to the ABC report (linked in the MSN article from the opening post), the teen may avoid jail by satisfying four different requirements:

• wear a drug and alcohol bracelet
• participate in counseling groups
• attend a church of his choosing – weekly
• graduate from high school

Presumably, the offender may substitute jail time for the deferred sentence by either declining to accept the judge’s offer or by failing to meet its requirements after agreeing to do so.

The Judge did sentence him to go to church. Take a look at the article again. Church was specifically mentioned. And the guy (not a kid, he's an adult) was going to church regularly... obviously those behavioral standards didn't stop him from getting drunk and getting behind the wheel.

According to what I read, the offender was 16 at the time of the accident and though determined guilty of underage drinking, did not have a blood alcohol level above the legal limit.

[GiancarloC]

According to what I read, the offender was 16 at the time of the accident and though determined guilty of underage drinking, did not have a blood alcohol level above the legal limit.

Then he wasn't legally impaired? That's even more of a reason to have a more serious punishment. He was in greater control of his motor functions and wasn't impaired by alcohol.

[BostonPirate]

So was he driving drunk or was he driving after purchasing alcohol as a minor?

I think on one hand he ought to spend some time in jail, but I also know that, at that age, he's more likely to become a career criminal if they send him to jail than if they don't.

However.... If this kid gets drunk and kills someone again, the judge, the church and the killer are going to catch hell, if you pardon the phrase.

[Kulindahr]

It absolutely DOES prove it. And where is your evidence that it isn't? It's nice to demand evidence, yet not to provide a shred of evidence of your own. The Judge failed miserably at the Lemon test. Sentencing anyone to church regardless of their religion is a violation of the separation of church and state. Try this: Bring some evidence showing how it's acceptable.

My evidence is the lack of any indication that he believes any specific religion is better than any other, or even better than any atheist organization. You're pretending to be able to read his mind. To do that, you have to prove that if the kid was an atheist, the judge wouldn't have sentenced him to continue going to some atheist morals-building group.

My claim about the Founding Fathers isn't false. I'm very well versed in American history. Nice try. Again, I'm not going to merely take your word at it. By the way, at one point in this country only white male property owners were allowed to vote. The poor... nope.

Sure it's false -- it's in the debates. They almost had a civil war right there during the revolution, because the majority despised slavery and wanted to say so. It was Franklin's words about hanging together that shut down the division and gave the minority its way. The same problem occurred with the drafting of the Constitution.

So you're obviously not "well versed in American history", you're plainly ignorant of the formation of the country.

http://idiotsguides.com/static/quick...g_fathers.html
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...rs-and-Slavery
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissue...les.asp?id=122


Note that the first one begins, "As everyone now knows, slavery was a big bone of contention during the creation of the Declaration of Independence." It's common knowledge... except apparently to you.

Abraham Lincoln even acknowledged that the FOunding Fathers despised slavery, but found themselves unable to end it quickly. The Revolution launched the abolitionist movement for the very reason that the Founders knew it to be an evil institution -- and in fact southerners were among the most outspoken against it... it's no accident that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were both quoted on the subject by Abolitionists.

The issue was summed up nicely by Washington, in fact, when he pointed out that even if all the Founders were in agreement that slavery should be abolished, neither the colonies splintered by the issue nor the following fledgling government had any power to do anything about it.

Oh -- I've bolded your fallacious attempt to derail.

[Kulindahr]

The Judge did sentence him to go to church. Take a look at the article again. Church was specifically mentioned. And the guy (not a kid, he's an adult) was going to church regularly... obviously those behavioral standards didn't stop him from getting drunk and getting behind the wheel.

No -- Benvolio happens to be right here. Church attendance is a "condition of release" or "condition of deferred sentence" or both.

And he both is a "kid" now and was when he crashed -- that was also noted by the court.

[GiancarloC]

My evidence is the lack of any indication that he believes any specific religion is better than any other, or even better than any atheist organization. You're pretending to be able to read his mind. To do that, you have to prove that if the kid was an atheist, the judge wouldn't have sentenced him to continue going to some atheist morals-building group.

Oh wow, so no evidence at all? That's exactly what I've seen here. Several others have disputed that weak fallible argument. THere was absolutely no justification for the judge's ruling. And what is an "atheist morals building group"? Atheism isn't organized and it isn't a religion either. The entire ruling was unnecessary. If he was going to get released, give him probation. Adding in church (which is clearly related to religion and NOT ATHEISM) is causing a major problem.

So you're obviously not "well versed in American history", you're plainly ignorant of the formation of the country.

I'm quite well versed in the history of this country. Thanks for the one sided exceptionalism argument. Clearly, the darker parts of this country's history is not something that would be part of your argument.

Keep up the one sided arguments... I know it's hard for some to hear facts about certain matters regarding this country's founding... and the double talk some of the founding fathers engaged in.

- - - Updated - - -

No -- Benvolio happens to be right here. Church attendance is a "condition of release" or "condition of deferred sentence" or both.

And he both is a "kid" now and was when he crashed -- that was also noted by the court.

NO, he's absolutely wrong. Church attendance being a condition of release is causing government entanglement in religion. The writing is on the wall.

[Kulindahr]

Then he wasn't legally impaired? That's even more of a reason to have a more serious punishment. He was in greater control of his motor functions and wasn't impaired by alcohol.

If you'd read the sources provided, you'd be aware that the law specifies that any minor with measurable blood alcohol level is considered impaired -- with good reason, too; the teen brain is busy reorganizing itself, and so is more impacted by alcohol. Since the measured level in his case was just a tiny fraction away from the legal limit, he was most certainly impaired both de facto and de jure.

[Kulindahr]

Oh wow, so no evidence at all? That's exactly what I've seen here. Several others have disputed that weak fallible argument. THere was absolutely no justification for the judge's ruling. And what is an "atheist morals building group"? Atheism isn't organized and it isn't a religion either. The entire ruling was unnecessary. If he was going to get released, give him probation. Adding in church (which is clearly related to religion and NOT ATHEISM) is causing a major problem.

"No evidence" is what you have.

There are a lot of atheist groups promoting morality -- humanist clubs are the most common, some of them specifically providing camps and meetings for teenagers in an atheist atmosphere. We even have one in redneck territory here, just down the street from the First Covenantal Baptist Church Like three doors down].

He is essentially on probation -- he just, apparently, doesn't have to report to anyone.

I'm quite well versed in the history of this country. Thanks for the one sided exceptionalism argument. Clearly, the darker parts of this country's history is not something that would be part of your argument.

Keep up the one sided arguments... I know it's hard for some to hear facts about certain matters regarding this country's founding... and the double talk some of the founding fathers engaged in.

Didn't read the Founders own words, did you?

Jefferson called it vile, Washington called it wicked, and other southerners had similar opinions. Their words show they didn't like slavery, despised it, but recognized nothing could be done at that point. What would you have had them do -- throw their slaves out into "freedom" which consisted of poverty and a high likelihood of being kidnapped back into slavery by owners with far less compassion that they had?

Basically your position boils down to you maintaining that any Founding Father who made statements you don't like were liars. The evidence shows they were quite honest.

[GiancarloC]

"No evidence" is what you have.

There are a lot of atheist groups promoting morality -- humanist clubs are the most common, some of them specifically providing camps and meetings for teenagers in an atheist atmosphere. We even have one in redneck territory here, just down the street from the First Covenantal Baptist Church Like three doors down].

Name them. There aren't atheist groups promoting morality. And this is exactly what I mean. No evidence is something I see in your argument. Atheism isn't about promoting morality, nor is it an organized religion. And I'm quite sure I know a lot more about atheism being an atheist myself.

Jefferson called it vile, Washington called it wicked, and other southerners had similar opinions. Their words show they didn't like slavery, despised it, but recognized nothing could be done at that point. What would you have had them do -- throw their slaves out into "freedom" which consisted of poverty and a high likelihood of being kidnapped back into slavery by owners with far less compassion that they had?

They all engaged in double talk... saying one thing, but doing the other even in their own lives.

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documen...slavelist.html

The founding fathers weren't infallible. Saying it's bad and despising yet engaging in it? Na... doesn't fly with me.

Again, without looking at the serious flaws in the founding fathers leads one to believe in American exceptionalism. That's not my problem.

[Kulindahr]

Name them. There aren't atheist groups promoting morality. And this is exactly what I mean. No evidence is something I see in your argument. Atheism isn't about promoting morality, nor is it an organized religion. And I'm quite sure I know a lot more about atheism being an atheist myself.

Optimist clubs tend to be atheist, and do humanist associations and clubs and alliances. There was an atheist club at OSU.

And atheists promote morality quite a bit -- just listen to videos of Dawkins, and more than a few TED talks.

They all engaged in double talk... saying one thing, but doing the other even in their own lives.

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documen...slavelist.html

The founding fathers weren't infallible. Saying it's bad and despising yet engaging in it? Na... doesn't fly with me.

Then I say you lack compassion, which is why Jefferson and Washington freed their slaves in their wills, and not before -- because only with the dissolution of their estates could they provide for those people.

Again, without looking at the serious flaws in the founding fathers leads one to believe in American exceptionalism. That's not my problem.

Calling them liars is just an expression of self-righteousness.

And that, BTW, is your whole problem in this thread: you're assuming people are guilty until proven innocent, if they disagree with you or you don't like the way they do things. That's a really sad way to do things -- as well as immoral.

[GiancarloC]

Optimist clubs tend to be atheist, and do humanist associations and clubs and alliances. There was an atheist club at OSU.

And atheists promote morality quite a bit -- just listen to videos of Dawkins, and more than a few TED talks.

That's beyond the point. There is no such thing as "atheist morals". Morals that are secular don't come from atheist groups. Atheism isn't an organized religion and it doesn't have a structure. Dawkins is a very intelligent man, but he speaks for himself (and I respect that).

Then I say you lack compassion, which is why Jefferson and Washington freed their slaves in their wills, and not before -- because only with the dissolution of their estates could they provide for those people.

Read the source I posted.

And that, BTW, is your whole problem in this thread: you're assuming people are guilty until proven innocent, if they disagree with you or you don't like the way they do things. That's a really sad way to do things -- as well as immoral.

Guilty until proven innocent? That's ironic.

Just because I don't lock step with the founding fathers elevating them above everything else does not mean I'm a bad person or a bad citizen for that matter. They are not infallible. And I wish people would stop citing the history as something desirable to replicate. This is the 21st century. Not the 18th century.

[evanrick]

murder..manslaughter... blah blah... someone died because of him... please dont stray from the main topic..

not sure if you are more concerned about the 'sentencing' or the 'conviction'. i agree with you in spirit that ya he was responsible for someones death and i could see how you may feel its murder. however American culture has accepted two things that are slowly changing: a penchant for conservative Christianity and our irresponsible society as it relates to traffic deaths/cars/alcohol.

[palemale]

I do agree though that sentencing someone to church is absurd and really is also a violation of church state separation.

The judge should be disbarred just for that.

I agree. It is astounding to see some of the fucking idiots that end up on the bench.

[Laufey]

The worst sentence he got is having to live with this on his conscience for the rest of his life.

I don't think there is need for the justice system to give him a harsh sentence.

[BostonPirate]

The worst sentence he got is having to live with this on his conscience for the rest of his life.

I don't think there is need for the justice system to give him a harsh sentence.

You are assuming he has a conscience.