Can a Judge Order a Convicted Drunk Driver to Attend Weekly Alcoholics Anonymous Meetings - Essay Example

The initiatives of the state to combat drunk driving have been a significant political agenda across the globe. Many countries view drunk driving as the cause of increased accidents in many regions. Education programs and rehabilitations are effective solutions to drunk driving. However, constitutional questions arise when the states through the AA issues argue on the religious rights and the conflicting issues arising; thus causing constitutional challenges.

In case the defendant violates probation, a one-month jail term is imposed depending on the original sentencing. However, the state implemented the law of AA as an effective amendment for providing spiritual revelation to drunk drivers. AA offers the defendant spiritual education programs in order to help the drunk driver to stop drinking (Smith 299). Drunk drivers are given AA as an alternative for going to jail and this takes place after carrying out an alcohol screening test. The court does not put the offender directly to AA, but they are sent to the probation officer or a counselor first. The counselor will carry out a screening test in order to determine the drinking pattern of the offender. The results will enable the officer to determine the drinking level and then make a decision of sending the offender to Alcoholic Anonymous. This alternative probation to jail was seen as effective because it reduces the costs of maintaining the offenders in jail.

The government may violate the freedom of religion, equal protection and due process by holding the court hearings in a church as seen under the First Amendment. Under the First Amendment rights, the church was given freedom and the constitution protects the rights of the church (Smith 301). The church was separated from the state and given the freedom to exercise its rights. Holding a court hearing in a church is deemed as a violation of freedom of religion and speech. This is because the First Amendment clause aimed at separating the church from the state. The central government does not have the authority to engage in church matters. However, the clause was advanced under the Fourteen Amendment and the constitution changed the First Amendment; thus, it prohibited the government at all levels in advancing religion. Therefore, the section of this law does not detach the religious creed from politics but rather the minister from the state.

There are constitutional rights under this issue that reveals that the judge does not violate the freedom of religion. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the government does not violate the freedom of religion because there are constitutional rights that reveal equal protection of both the church and state. Individuals have the freedom of bringing conviction issues into the public agenda, this is because the constitution does not separate religion from politics; thus one has his or her freedom of exercising religious freedom. The government does not have the authority of supporting religious views nor supporting non-religious viewpoints. Preventing the state or the government from interfering with religious issues has been a debated issue in contemporary society. The metaphor of separating the state from religious issues was established by Rhode Island whose view was that any government interfering with the church issues is like corrupting the church. Hence, the government may interfere with the freedom of religion in case they hold court hearings in church.

Smith (329) argues that Alcohol Anonymous play a significant role in rehabilitating many drunk drivers, but it is religious, spiritual and indoctrinating in character. Alcoholics Anonymous, which is a trial condition, consists of the state action that enforced the attendance of AA. However, this obligation is viewed as an infringement of the religious independence rights of an individual. It violates one’s right of exercising freedom and those who hold religious beliefs or doctrines may view it as a hindrance towards their personal, religious beliefs. Judges may offer alternative punishments than AA conditions. This will allow the judges to avoid violating the religious freedom rights, but allow the drunk drivers to receive effective rehabilitation programs with full protection of the fundamental constitutional rights.

Moreover, the sentencing court may provide counseling programs effective for rehabilitating drunk drivers rather than the AA program. There are numerous means of court sentencing or probation apart from jailing that can effectively rehabilitate the alcoholics. This is because the constitution has its laws governing the freedom of religion; thus, AA may create conflicting issues between the state and religion. AA is significant, but the judiciary should come into a neutral agreement with religion and involve them in rehabilitation issues. Religious expressions in public hearings are effective, but the judiciary should ensure that they are in harmony with the religious guidelines and they should deny one’s right of exercising freedom rights. Preserving the freedom of religion and maintaining the public integrity of the state are jointly linked together.