If seperation of church and state really exists, why are judges allowed to consider religion in sentencing?

Question

With the favorable nod always given to those who convert to Xtianity and the noose for those who abstain from religion altogether.

Bluffmike, you should take a really good look at your pic before you start accusing folks of looking foolish, friend.

"If an attorney stood up at sentencing and stated as sole mitigation "my client is a Christian" and then sat down, the judge would probably not give any break."

What about the word Satanism getting someone a nastier sentence or even being denied an earlier release when uttered by a prosecutor? I've seen/heard of that happening, as well as members of my faith being denied ritual accoutrements by wardens.

Answer 1

Sentencing provisions can include a catch-all category for mitigation in which the Judge can consider anything in reaching a determination of aggravating or mitigating the sentence beyond the presumptive. Many people do use this as a platform to argue that they have spent their pre-sentence incarceration time in Bible study or other programs: it can only really be argued as a part of the complete picture, however.

If an attorney stood up at sentencing and stated as sole mitigation "my client is a Christian" and then sat down, the judge would probably not give any break. At the very least, the judge would have one Hell of a time explicating for the record why he was deviating from the presumptive to a mitigated sentence...

Answer 2

You obviously don't understand the concept of Seperation of Church and State. It makes you look foolish, especially with OJ and Kobe walking around while Marth Stewart did time.

Answer 3

Seperation of church and state doesn't really exist.
The congress is prohibited from making laws that "establishes" a religion. But it can make laws regulating religions and religous practices.