Who doesn’t love a humble man? And Mike Norman is, if nothing else, humble, as demonstrated by his words:
“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.”As for the constitutionality of his ruling, Judge Norman said, “I think it would hold up, but I don’t know one way or another.”
How many judges would admit to such wholesale ignorance of the law? Humble. The posterboy for humility. Oklahoma Judge Mike Norman is a very humble man. As reported in the New York Times, Norman was constrained to impose a sentence, and did what he thought was best.
The 17-year-old defendant, Tyler Alred, was prosecuted as a youthful offender, giving the judge more discretion than in an adult case. Mr. Alred pleaded guilty to manslaughter for an accident last year, when he ran his car into a tree and a 16-year-old passenger was killed.
Although his alcohol level tested below the legal limit, because he was under age he was legally considered to be under the influence of alcohol. Mr. Alred told the court that he was happy to agree to church attendance and other mandates — including that he finish high school and train as a welder, and shun alcohol, drugs and tobacco for a year. By doing so, he is avoiding a 10-year prison sentence and has a chance to make a fresh start.
As is often the case, the defendant was probably pretty darned happy with being sentenced to church for ten years. For one thing, it beats the hell out of prison. For another, there are cute girls in church, and you never know when one is going to take a shine to you. And of course, certain pockets of our fine God-fearing Christian nation believe that it’s good for one’s soul.
But what if Tyler Alred decides a couple of years from now that he prefers to pray to Mohammed instead of Jesus? Worse still, what if he decides that there is no zombie deity at all? Ten years is a long time, and 17-year-olds sometimes change their mind about things like religion. It can happen.
The unconstitutionality of a judge sentencing a person to religious adherence seems too obvious for discussion. Regardless of whether you believe that a stint in church won’t do this young man any harm, likely because you happen to embrace its teachings and thus see no pragmatic problem, the constitutional thingy, the Establishment Clause, that prohibits a secular government from forcing religion upon anyone, gets in the way. You can’t make the choice prison or Jesus, no matter how willing the penitent is to accept the latter or how strongly you believe that it’s a good deal.
That humble Mike Norman doesn’t seem to have much of a grasp of this issue, however, is disturbing. Norman is a judge. As a judge, he has the authority to make decisions that affect people’s lives. No matter how much you appreciate humility in a man with power, you also need to be able to believe that he’s not, well, clueless. From what he says, it’s hard to believe that of Mike Norman.
In fairness, Norman didn’t specify the religion to which he sentenced Alred.
Judge Norman did not specify which religious denomination Mr. Alred must follow. But he also said: “I think Jesus can help anybody. I know I need help from him every day.”
I bet Judge Norman needs Jesus’ help every day. Probably numerous times a day. But Norman’s choice of deity isn’t the bar by which the law measures constitutionality or judicial competence.
The trend toward alternative sentences, punishment that doesn’t require a person to go to jail or prison, and seeks another way to achieve the legitimate goals of a sentence, is generally a good one. Given our American love of imprisonment, offering judges an option that won’t increase the prison population is certainly something that should be considered and applauded.
Yet, the alternatives that judges come up with too often reflect their peculiar personal vision of propriety, whether to carry a sign that says she’s an “idiot” or to pray to God they don’t get caught again. It seems impossible to believe that these judges have no appreciation of the limits of their authority, or their ability to impose bizarre sentences that either humiliate people for fun or violate the Constitution.
Humble is a good thing, in a person and even more so in a judge. But clueless is not. While alternatives to incarceration is also a good thing, commending a defendant to the hands of God is way outside a judge’s authority. How is it possible that the people in whom we repose our secular legal faith don’t know this?
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s Oklahoma, and it’s the Constitution. If you’ve ever tried to mix oil and water you’ll understand how things work around these parts.
You’re just an Oklahoma hater. I have great faith that Oklahoma is OK.
Au contraire, I love it here. Finding ways to sucker courts into applying the Constitution without appearing to do so is quite an interesting challenge.
ah, Sneaky. I like it.
You ask, “How is it possible that the people in whom we repose our secular legal faith don’t know this?” The answer is simple – they do know this but have absolutely no fear that they’ll be called on it. In my experience you usually find these types of judges in courtrooms that are filled with either cowardly criminal defense lawyers or criminal defense lawyers who are too stupid or inexperienced to call the judge on his nonsense.
The New York Times article says nothing about the moron who represented this poor kid. Nor does it say anything about pleading this kid guilty to manslaughter when he has a blood-alcohol level less than a .08. I gets some criminal defense lawyers would take the position that 10 years probation which only requires going to church for manslaughter charge is a good result, so why take on the judge who may only get angry and slam my client for calling him one is stupidity or ignorance or arrogance within that same attorney would have to disregard his ethical duty to zealously defend his client.
The other obvious issue to me is who are the prosecutors, whom I presume are also lawyers, allowing this kind of ruling to go on? I’ve seen this kind of behavior from judges occur from time to time and notice there seems to be a agreed-upon conspiracy among the local prosecutors and local defense bar. It’s usually also in a judge’s court room who’s been sitting there for a long time and has a reputation of offering pleas of, “my way or the highway.” This type of judge has often figured out that the black robe he wears infuses him with the wisdom of Solomon and no longer requires him to follow the law or the Constitution and if you want to “get along” in my courtroom you better be willing to “go along.” (wink, wink – nod, nod.)
Excellent points. While my question was rhetorical, the answer always involves all the players in the courtroom, as judges can’t “get away” with such conduct unless everyone else enables/acquiesces to it to some greater or lesser degree.
Giving his defense lawyer the benefit of the doubt, the defendant wanted the deal and his job was to do what was in the best interest of his client, constitutional niceties be damned. Certainly, 10 years of church was better than 10 years in prison, and despite his BAC, there’s never a guarantee of winning at trial.
As for Norman, I assume that he never expected his sentence to be scrutinized outside his courtroom, his little fiefdom. Whether he thought himself Solomonic or Omnipotent is hard to say, but he’s now in the crosshairs of a lot of people who don’t have to play his game.
So long as the kid’s BAC was measurable (yes, you read that right) and his age was under 21, he committed a misdemeanor, and that’s good enough for a misdemeanor-manslaughter conviction in OK. The plea wasn’t an issue at all.
Sir, it appears that this (preaching from the bench syndrome) has spread north from the great state of confusion aka: Texas. Remember, our most recent embarrassing moment in legal history also came in the form of a clueless bible thumping judge, where he too was caught judging from the hip. My fear is that they know what they are doing but could careless of what we the friggin people think about it.
*10 years of one foot in & one foot out is virtually impossible to fulfill, due to the hurdles, loopholes & bad cops running loose. But we also wish him good luck in his endeavors just the same. Thanks.
Well, that clears that up.
1) Could he become a nominal Catholic and go to church twice a year, at Easter and Christmas? [I didn’t see anything in the NYT about attendance frequency.]
2) Could he sign up for a free online minister degree and hold his own services?