5 ms·

The galling thing about AA/NA in the US is that judges often mandate attendance as condition for release of a DUI. The problem being, this violates the defenda

by mckoss 12y ago

The galling thing about AA/NA in the US is that judges often mandate attendance as condition for release of a DUI. The problem being, this violates the defendants 1st amendedment rights by the state forcing a religion on him.

danesparza 12y ago
Forgive me, I'm not sure which right you're referring to. The text of the first amendment of the United States of America reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." AA (in my understanding) doesn't force any religion. The 12 steps (link http://www.aa.org/assets/en_US/smf-121_en.pdf http://www.aa.org/assets/en_US/smf-121_en.pdf) talk about "a power greater than ourselves". There's no reason that couldn't be the judge assigning the sentence, in this case.
- ambiate 12y ago
  For my pharmacology class, I had to attend multiple AA sessions. From my experience, in two separate regions, AA replaces the addiction with an addiction to social responsibility and moral responsibility (through a deity). In my honest opinion, judges are prescribing religion (or Kohlberg?) as a replacement addiction. My outside observation was cult behaviors with a climbable hierarchy of social power and control.
- jqm 12y ago
  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.." When you force people into a program that references some idea of God you are doing exactly that..
  - danesparza 12y ago
    I guess I'm nitpicking, but the amendment mentions Congress, not the judicial branch. I suppose you could challenge the judge with a separate case -- I'm pretty certain our legal system would support that. Doing a quick Google search, it appears that at least one court has found mandated AA unconstitutional: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Appeals-court-says-requirement-to-attend-AA-2542005.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Appeals-court-says-req...
  - Stronico 12y ago
    I think the alternative to AA meetings is usually jail time - so it probably is to some degree voluntary.
    - jqm 12y ago
      I don't call that voluntary any more than I call a check ballot for or against Hitler a democracy.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > I think the alternative to AA meetings is usually jail time - so it probably is to some degree voluntary. "Do this or go to jail" is pretty much the definition of something which is -- legally speaking -- compulsory, not voluntary. Its voluntary in the trivial sense that a conscious choice is involved, but not voluntary in the legal sense (or the substantive sense of a free choice made without threat of force.)
  - mcelreath 12y ago
    I've been in AA for years, and I agree with this - not just because of the establishment clause (which is reason enough), but because on the AA side we specifically state in our preamble that 'AA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution.' Making it a government-sanctioned and non-voluntary program violates one of the core organizing principles of AA that has allowed it to last this long. The judicial system should concentrate on medical/behavioral/psychological research and let the leave the twelve-step groups alone.
  - seanflyon 12y ago
    A state court forcing someone to do something is not Congress, nor is it making a law. You are reacting to what you want it to say, not what is actually written.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > A state court forcing someone to do something is not Congress Which is why its not an independent First Amendment issue, but a Fourteenth Amendment issue, however, as it is well-settled law that the scope of the rights considered fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty and thereby incorporated against the States under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes the entirety of the protections of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, the usual legal analysis of religious freedom issues, whether state or federal, is under the First Amendment logic applied the same way whether the government involved is state or federal. > nor is it making a law. It is either (a) enforcing a law that Congress or a state legislature made (which law, if it violates First Amendment religious freedoms, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when a State does it or the applicable clause of the First when the federal government does it) or (b) depriving someone of Constitutional liberty without a basis in law in the first place (which also violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment when a State does it, and the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment if it were a federal court.)
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > AA (in my understanding) doesn't force any religion. Your understanding is incorrect on two levels; first, AA are religious even if in a somewhat generically deistic way, and not secular in and of themselves, second, the actual AA groups in a particular area to which defendants are permitted to choose are often even more specifically religious than AA-on-its-own, to the point of being affiliated with specific established religious institutions other than AA itself.
dragonwriter 12y ago
Note that this as a condition of release (which goes beyond just DUI) has over the last decade been explicitly struck down as unconstitutional where the person subject to the order has a religious objection to the program by at least the 2nd, 7th, and 9th Circuits -- and upheld, AFAIK, by no federal appellate court. So, while it has been a common practice, the tide is turning fairly rapidly against it in the legal system.

by mckoss 12y ago

danesparza 12y ago

Forgive me, I'm not sure which right you're referring to. The text of the first amendment of the United States of America reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." AA (in my understanding) doesn't force any religion. The 12 steps (link http://www.aa.org/assets/en_US/smf-121_en.pdf http://www.aa.org/assets/en_US/smf-121_en.pdf) talk about "a power greater than ourselves". There's no reason that couldn't be the judge assigning the sentence, in this case.

ambiate 12y ago
For my pharmacology class, I had to attend multiple AA sessions. From my experience, in two separate regions, AA replaces the addiction with an addiction to social responsibility and moral responsibility (through a deity). In my honest opinion, judges are prescribing religion (or Kohlberg?) as a replacement addiction. My outside observation was cult behaviors with a climbable hierarchy of social power and control.
jqm 12y ago
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.." When you force people into a program that references some idea of God you are doing exactly that..
- danesparza 12y ago
  I guess I'm nitpicking, but the amendment mentions Congress, not the judicial branch. I suppose you could challenge the judge with a separate case -- I'm pretty certain our legal system would support that. Doing a quick Google search, it appears that at least one court has found mandated AA unconstitutional: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Appeals-court-says-requirement-to-attend-AA-2542005.php http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Appeals-court-says-req...
- Stronico 12y ago
  I think the alternative to AA meetings is usually jail time - so it probably is to some degree voluntary.
  - jqm 12y ago
    I don't call that voluntary any more than I call a check ballot for or against Hitler a democracy.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > I think the alternative to AA meetings is usually jail time - so it probably is to some degree voluntary. "Do this or go to jail" is pretty much the definition of something which is -- legally speaking -- compulsory, not voluntary. Its voluntary in the trivial sense that a conscious choice is involved, but not voluntary in the legal sense (or the substantive sense of a free choice made without threat of force.)
- mcelreath 12y ago
  I've been in AA for years, and I agree with this - not just because of the establishment clause (which is reason enough), but because on the AA side we specifically state in our preamble that 'AA is not allied with any sect, denomination, politics, organization or institution.' Making it a government-sanctioned and non-voluntary program violates one of the core organizing principles of AA that has allowed it to last this long. The judicial system should concentrate on medical/behavioral/psychological research and let the leave the twelve-step groups alone.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  A state court forcing someone to do something is not Congress, nor is it making a law. You are reacting to what you want it to say, not what is actually written.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > A state court forcing someone to do something is not Congress Which is why its not an independent First Amendment issue, but a Fourteenth Amendment issue, however, as it is well-settled law that the scope of the rights considered fundamental to the concept of ordered liberty and thereby incorporated against the States under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes the entirety of the protections of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment, the usual legal analysis of religious freedom issues, whether state or federal, is under the First Amendment logic applied the same way whether the government involved is state or federal. > nor is it making a law. It is either (a) enforcing a law that Congress or a state legislature made (which law, if it violates First Amendment religious freedoms, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when a State does it or the applicable clause of the First when the federal government does it) or (b) depriving someone of Constitutional liberty without a basis in law in the first place (which also violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment when a State does it, and the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment if it were a federal court.)
dragonwriter 12y ago
> AA (in my understanding) doesn't force any religion. Your understanding is incorrect on two levels; first, AA are religious even if in a somewhat generically deistic way, and not secular in and of themselves, second, the actual AA groups in a particular area to which defendants are permitted to choose are often even more specifically religious than AA-on-its-own, to the point of being affiliated with specific established religious institutions other than AA itself.

dragonwriter 12y ago

Note that this as a condition of release (which goes beyond just DUI) has over the last decade been explicitly struck down as unconstitutional where the person subject to the order has a religious objection to the program by at least the 2nd, 7th, and 9th Circuits -- and upheld, AFAIK, by no federal appellate court. So, while it has been a common practice, the tide is turning fairly rapidly against it in the legal system.