Suspension of judge for sentencing defendants to attend

[Gaffney, Edward]

Jim is surely right in noting that "it is not necessarily true that all
convicted criminals are not churchgoers."   But even in the case of a
church-going offender, there is a salutary effect in encouraging on-going
contact with that offender's community after the conviction.  Support for
offenders is vital to their real correction, whether in or our of prison.
 At the end of the day, I agree with Jim that we shouldn't punish a judge
"for trying an innovative approach that hasn't been previously declared
unconstitutional,
illegal, or inappropriate and with respect to which there is some serious
doubt whether it ever would be so declared."   Ed Gaffney
 ----------
From: Jim Maule
To: Multiple recipients of list RELIGIONLAW
Subject: Re: Suspension of judge for sentencing defendants to attend
Date: Wednesday, December 17, 1997 4:25PM

In other words, don't punish someone for trying an innovative
approach that hasn't been previously declared unconstitutional,
illegal, or inappropriate and with respect to which there is some
serious doubt whether it ever would be so declared.

But if a person already is attending church weekly (for example,
someone convicted of a DUI-related offense) then where's the
deterrent/retribution/etc in having the person so continue? (My
premise is that it is not necessarily true that all convicted
criminals are not churchgoers.) If, though, the judge was limiting
this sentencing practice to those who were NOT attending church (at
all or regularly), then how was that information obtained, and is it
permissible to ask a defendant (at least at the sentencing stage)
about his or her churchgoing practices?

Jim Maule
Professor of Law
Villanova University School of Law
Villanova, PA 19085
maule at law.vill.edu
http://www.cilp.org/~maule
(610) 519 - 7135