«
»

Should courts be allowed to force offenders to complete AA classes…?


… when steps like this are required for completion?

“Make a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.”

Does anyone see this as conflicting with the Constitution?

  • Share/Bookmark

, , , , , ,

This entry was posted on February 7, 2010, 1:50 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

  1. #1 by §∂p¡£n† on February 7, 2010 - 1:57 am

    Yes, but attending and paying attention are two very different things. If you get a DUI, I’d think you’d be thanking your lucky stars that you wound up with mandatory AA, instead of jail-time. Just me though.

  2. #2 by Bluto Blutarsky49 on February 7, 2010 - 2:07 am

    yes it does, someone should challenge it but given the fact that AA is usually part of a plea bargain for a lesser charge rather than face a more seirous one, people are not exactly going to do so.

    actually don’t statistics show that AA gives the same results as a person who quits on thier own?

  3. #3 by Andymcj78 (atheist) on February 7, 2010 - 2:47 am

    In the UK it wouldn’t happen as only a secular organisation would be sanctioned by the courts and it shouldn’t be happening in the US.

  4. #4 by Brian on February 7, 2010 - 3:26 am

    AA is an alcohol cessation group. I don’t think anyone is FORCED to attend. A person can attend or go to jail so in the end it is the offenders choice..

    I didn’t know AA was religion based..

  5. #5 by guinnessx on February 7, 2010 - 4:25 am

    Courts forcing someone to complete AA would be a violation of the separation of church and state. Courts are able to mandate that people participate in treatment, and it is up to them to decide whether to go to a religious organization such as AA, or secular organizations such as SOS. If you or someone you know have been forced to attend AA, I believe you have a lawsuit on your hands.

    Edit in response to Bluto: Yes, the chances of success in treatment groups like AA are exactly the same as in quitting on your own.

  6. #6 by turtles all the way down on February 7, 2010 - 5:05 am

    Yes. It frustrates me that most people don’t realize that AA is a religious group. I also have problems with their claims of effectiveness. No study has ever shown that AA was more effective than quitting on one’s own.

    (Actually, no study has shown that it was more effective by a significant margin. There was at least one where AA members had a higher rate of success, but the rate was statistically insignificant and may have been the result of chance.)

  7. #7 by allyn h on February 7, 2010 - 5:59 am

    As a member of AA here’s my take on it…AA has helped MANY people who really do NEED to stop drinking do so. Step 3 “made a decision to turn our life’s and wills over to the care of God AS WE UNDERSTAND HIM! meaning we (AA) are not telling you whom to believe in, many people in the program do not believe in the Christian God, many believe in nature being their higher power, or GOD simply stand for Group Of Drunks. If you take the time to read the Big Book Of AA there is a letter to the Atheists and Agnostic in it.
    And Yes i think people should have to go to AA if they have gotten a DUI…If that what it takes to get them off the streets! I would rather someone have to sit through some AA meetings then to Kill my family members while deciding the drinking and Driving is a good choice.

  8. #8 by problem on February 7, 2010 - 6:31 am

    Yes, they should. The “as we understand Him” can be a door knob if you like, AA is not religious. ANY thing to get drunk drivers off the road is GREAT!

  9. #9 by atheistsareus on February 7, 2010 - 6:40 am

    If the only option an offender was court ordered to do was an AA (which is religious based) yes I would, however, in this state (Washington) courts do not order specific programs, they might mention a specific program, but usually language also includes “or similarly approved program” in the order.

    I’ve worked in courts as an advocate for family law situiation for 12 years. I’ve never seen someone court ordered to a specific program/institution unless the offender made a request for a specific program. Further, if someone does not like the program they have been refered to they can apply to the court for an alternative option, provided the alternative option is state approved and fully accredited.

  10. #10 by novangelis on February 7, 2010 - 6:42 am

    The loophole is that the courts do not mandate AA. Successful completion of an alcohol treatment program is accepted in exchange for a lighter sentence. Although the formal twelve steps statement mentions “God”, AA is not a religious organization.

    “AA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution; does not wish to engage in any controversy, neither endorses nor opposes any causes. Our primary purpose is to stay sober and help other alcoholics to achieve sobriety.”

    “A.A. is not a religious organization. All members are free to decide on their own personal ideas about the meaning of life.”

  11. #11 by Hugh W on February 7, 2010 - 7:34 am

    There are many other programs for Addicts to attend. The court is only allowed to order someone to either take some form or rehabilitation or jail time. They can not force you to do anything but there is the penalty of jail for non-compliance.

  12. #12 by redrum4008 on February 7, 2010 - 8:28 am

    They are able to get away with that as being spiritual and not religious. It is the belief in a “higher power.” Good luck with getting it changed. It was one of the sticking points when I rehab’ed. It was easier for me to follow the”red road of recovery.” Traditionally for native Americans but works good with wiccan beliefs. You could just refuse to finish the class. The courts will punish you for that. It is a way to get a lighter sentence. Your choice. Some states have allowed programs like “s.m.a.r.t” or “rational recovery.” If that is the issue then look these up in your state. If your just bitching then “carry on.”

  13. #13 by main man on February 7, 2010 - 9:24 am

    The court’s responsibility is to the safety of the people who put them there. So yes, even jail if one screws up while drunk.

Comments are closed.