From this morning’s fishwrapper. So, a guy (who just happens to be agnostic) got arrested for DUI in Perrysburg. His blood alcohol level was .297, or about three times the legal limit. The judge gave him a choice: join Alcoholics Anonymous or spend 30 days in jail. Now the Ohio ACLUis suing because they claim that the perp was unconstitutionally forced to choose between a “faith-based” treatment program and going to jail.
Now, this is so wrong I don’t even know where to begin.
First of all, AA is spiritually-based, but they don’t require you to worship, or even acknowledge, any particular God or god. The Blade article says that the national and Ohio versions of the organizations differ on this point, but I don’t think that the Ohio chapter’s materials are, shall we say, doctrinally correct.
Second, as far as I can tell under Ohio law, the judge was not required to offer any alternative to jail time. The Blade says that the perp completed the three-day driver intervention program, but that his behavior there (combined with his super-high blood alcohol level) led to the AA recommendation. The ACLU is spinning this as “say you believe or go to jail”– but it’s not; it’s “break the law and go to jail, unless you would rather join AA”. This seems perfectly constitutional to me; there is no express or implied constitutional right to avoid punishment for being found guilty of violating a constitutional law.
Now, I could write a long rant about how the ACLU picks and chooses which freedoms it likes and which ones it chooses to attack, rather than defend, but that’s been done already.
Paul's Down-Home Page 