There are some things in life that I simply cannot understand. That list grew by one when I read about Oklahoma District Court Judge Mike Norman sentencing a 17 year old convicted of manslaughter to weekly church attendance for the next ten years. Incredibly, this isn’t the first time Norman has resorted to mandatory church attendance.
Thankfully, many have noticed and are speaking openly about how Norman’s latest sentence differs prior cases in which he ordered church attendance: never before had he issued church attendance for such a serious crime. According to a New York times article, the American Civil Liberties Union plans to file a complaint against Judge Norman. The article reports the judge’s response to criticism:
The judge said he was surprised at the criticism. “I feel like church is important,” he said. “I sentenced him to go to church for 10 years because I thought I could do that.”
So What?
This is not the first time Judge Mike Norman sentenced someone to church. While not a widespread practice, it has been used by other judges in recent years.
What do you think: Should a judge be allowed to sentence someone to mandatory church attendance? Why or why not?