NationStates Jolt Archive

A guy who tried to use a stolen credit card went before a judge in Ohio for a bail hearing. The thief's lawyer told the judge that the alleged criminal attended church and was a religious man in order to get the judge to keep the bail low. The judge then asked the defendant to recite the 23rd psalm and the defendant did so. Upon hearing that the judge released him on an "appearance bond", which requires no money to be paid up front.

Now this just seems wrong. What does the defendant's religious affiliation and wheather or not he can recite a religious scripture have to do with wheather he's a flight risk? I somehow doubt that the judge would extend the same treatment to a person who's not religious and that would be religious discrimination and a violation of civil rights.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/25/national/a135852D63.DTL&type=bondage

Well, if I go to America and do something I shouldn't, I now know how to get out of bail. Thanks, DCD!

I fail to see how this should surprise anyone. It is Ohio we're talking about, home of Fightin' James Traficant (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/18/traficant.ethics/index.html) and that non-fat Taft.

I thought you had to learn the 51st psalm :confused:

course everyone knows he's now expected to be shipped to Australia for hard labor :p

that is so worng... you're right.

could have been a lot worse though

Ah, you silly americans. Over here you just go I'll try not to kill anyone and they'll bail you.

What a fucked up Law system you guys have. Ours isn't much better though!

Oh, I'll not quote the Koran then ...

Eh, it's just a judge trying to be nice, albeit a TFM, but nice.

Oh, I'll not quote the Koran then ...

I would. I hear you get an all expense paid Caribbean vacation in Cuba if you do.

It's probably some flavor of if the criminal has religion then the criminal will be capable of guilt and reformation. "I went to jail and I found Jesus and I was saved and I'll never sin again! Well, until you actually let me out of jail and I'm tempted, but Jesus will forgive me so it's OK! This is great!"

That or the judge figured his offense wasn't THAT bad, he didn't kill or rape anyone, just their bank account, or the judge is just a moron.

Seems to me that some judges need to spend some time in 're-education' camps before they're allowed anywhere near that gavel again.

Eh, it's just a judge trying to be nice, albeit a TFM, but nice.

TFM?

I would. I hear you get an all expense paid Caribbean vacation in Cuba if you do.

Yeah, but the food at that resort sucks. Plus they have cockroaches.

I would. I hear you get an all expense paid Caribbean vacation in Cuba if you do.

And a free orange jumpsuit?

TFM?

Total Fucking Moron

And a free orange jumpsuit?

I had to give mine back when they let me out of the workhouse. I kept my orange boxer shorts though.

Total Fucking Moron

I see.

Um, this really isn't that bad.

When assessing bail, a judge can look at several factors to determine whether or not one is a flight risk. Ties to the community has always been a factor a judge can analyze in determining flight risk.

Ties to a religious community are ties to a community. He wanted him to demonstrate that he was, in fact, religious, to consider whether the claim was valid.

This is not actually that big a deal.

Um, this really isn't that bad.

When assessing bail, a judge can look at several factors to determine whether or not one is a flight risk. Ties to the community has always been a factor a judge can analyze in determining flight risk.

Ties to a religious community are ties to a community. He wanted him to demonstrate that he was, in fact, religious, to consider whether the claim was valid.

This is not actually that big a deal.

It just seems wrong to me that one's religious affiliation might be taken into account in a case like this.

Mmh. Interesting.

I wonder why the judge didn't ask him for the 10 commandments instead and emphasized on the "Thou shalt not steal" part a little bit?

A guy who tried to use a stolen credit card went before a judge in Ohio for a bail hearing. The thief's lawyer told the judge that the alleged criminal attended church and was a religious man in order to get the judge to keep the bail low. The judge then asked the defendant to recite the 23rd psalm and the defendant did so. Upon hearing that the judge released him on an "appearance bond", which requires no money to be paid up front.

Now this just seems wrong. What does the defendant's religious affiliation and wheather or not he can recite a religious scripture have to do with wheather he's a flight risk? I somehow doubt that the judge would extend the same treatment to a person who's not religious and that would be religious discrimination and a violation of civil rights.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/25/national/a135852D63.DTL&type=bondage

I'm lucky this doesn't work in Massachusetts. (At least I hope not)

It just seems wrong to me that one's religious affiliation might be taken into account in a case like this.

I don't think his religious affiliation was, per se. Ties to a community are ties to a community. I would think it would in fact be wrong to NOT take into consideration ties to a religious community simply because it is religious.

I WOULD think it wrong to consider as valid ties to a christian community, but not a muslim one, or a jewish one, or a buddhist one. That would be wrong if you can get out without bail because of your ties to a christian community but not my ties to a jewish one.

But that is somewhat beyond the bounds of this instance.

I think that someone didn't read Exodus 20. :p

Gotta love the American Judicial system.

Now this just seems wrong. What does the defendant's religious affiliation and wheather or not he can recite a religious scripture have to do with wheather he's a flight risk? I somehow doubt that the judge would extend the same treatment to a person who's not religious and that would be religious discrimination and a violation of civil rights.


Depends on whether he's claiming to have ties to the local community or some sort of obligation to his church. The article is short on details. I suppose you might get the same benefit of the doubt if you were president of the local Rotary Club or Elk's Lodge or something like that, though there's never a guarantee.

Edit: wow.. bunch of people beat me to it while my modem was choking on this post.. sorry. :)

Whether or not he could recite the psalm is a simple test of the guy's credibility.. immigration judges, for example, used to make similar requests in asylum cases.. they can't ask you to "prove" your knowledge of a religion anymore, unless you're claiming to be a teacher or expert, but it might still be acceptable in criminal cases. I'm not too sure about the specifics there. The article seems to want to make something of that recitation, but it's been common practice to ask for similar proof of faith in some circumstances for a good while.

The judge should be disbarred.

The judge should have asked him something harder. Like how many times the word begat appears in the Bible.

The judge should have asked him something harder. Like how many times the word begat appears in the Bible.

Answer: A whole fucking lot.

Mmh. Interesting.

I wonder why the judge didn't ask him for the 10 commandments instead and emphasized on the "Thou shalt not steal" part a little bit?
That would have been a lot more entertaining.

A guy who tried to use a stolen credit card went before a judge in Ohio for a bail hearing. The thief's lawyer told the judge that the alleged criminal attended church and was a religious man in order to get the judge to keep the bail low. The judge then asked the defendant to recite the 23rd psalm and the defendant did so. Upon hearing that the judge released him on an "appearance bond", which requires no money to be paid up front.

Now this just seems wrong. What does the defendant's religious affiliation and wheather or not he can recite a religious scripture have to do with wheather he's a flight risk? I somehow doubt that the judge would extend the same treatment to a person who's not religious and that would be religious discrimination and a violation of civil rights.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/25/national/a135852D63.DTL&type=bondageLinky no worky... firewall blocks it. :(

It just seems wrong to me that one's religious affiliation might be taken into account in a case like this.I think there are other factors involved. one being is this his first offense?
also, the nature of the crime, flight risk, ties to the community...

the lawyer and the defendent made the religious claim, and so the judge tested him. fine, that doesn't mean that if he got it wrong he would've had a high bail.

The judge should have asked him something harder. Like how many times the word begat appears in the Bible.

or recite the shortest verse in the Bible. :p

or recite the shortest verse in the Bible. :p

Correct me if I'm wrong (which is quite possible as I'm not christian) but isn't it:

Jesus wept

That would have been a lot more entertaining.

Yeah, but the judge probably wouldn't know them.

Correct me if I'm wrong (which is quite possible as I'm not christian) but isn't it:

Yep.

The judge should have asked him something harder. Like how many times the word begat appears in the Bible.

There's a lot of "begatting" in the Bible. And this is the same bible that sexophobes like to drool all over.... :p

In all seriousness, if the judge is going to pull crap like that, make the alleged criminal recite the 10 commandments and emphasize on the "thou shalt not steal" bit.

Or recite all the books of the Bible.

So basically, the judge is saying that if you are so devoted to the teachings of the old and new testaments, he can trust you not to commit a crime, like running off.
forgive if I'm wrong, but isn't 'not stealing' explicitly stated somewhere in the Bible?

If the man's happy to break that one, why should we trust him not to do break any others?

Talking about religion in this case seems to me to be missing the point, the point is that this judge is a naive idiot, but that doesn't seem to be the fundamental objection here.

If this man had said that he had discovered John Lennon, and started to listen to "Imagine" each day, and he was let off, I doubt that such a topic would have been raised here.

Wouldn't this be about 20 times more ironic if it had been an alledged abortion clinic bomber or something?

Pfft..

Thats nothing.
The real way to go is become a celebrity.

That way you can take illegal drugs, rape children, or even murder your ex-wife and her boyfriend and get off scott-free!