I have no idea whether a sentence like this is legal or Constitutionally kosher, although judges seem to have wide latitude in imposing sentences. In places like Texas, the sentences can be bizarre. And in this case, the sentence is doubly ridiculous for it’s an unwarranted violation of both private relationship and the Constitutionally mandated separation of church from state.
What happened, as reported by The Raw Story, is that one Josten Bundy got into a fight with the ex-boyfriend of his current girlfriend.
Bundy was charged with assault.
Judge Randall Rogers, from Smith County, Texas, in the NW part of the state, told Bundy he had two choices: spend 15 days in the slammer or marry his girlfriend within 30 days. Bundy opted for the nuptials, but wasn’t happy about being rushed to the altar. Although he loved his girlfriend, he would have preferred the jail term rather than a shotgun wedding, but for some reason the judge wouldn’t let him tell his employers before incarceration. And so the knot was tied:
“It just felt like we weren’t going to be able to have the wedding we wanted,” she [Elizabeth Jaynes, Bundy’s girlfriend] explained. “It was just going to be kind of pieced together, I didn’t even have a white dress.”
The couple got a marriage license and were married by a justice of the peace, but Bundy was unhappy because the impromptu wedding meant many in is his family couldn’t attend, and Jaynes [sic] father criticized the judge for forcing the wedding on the young couple.
“[I felt] anger; I was mad. [The judge] can’t do this by court ordering somebody to be married,” said Kenneth Jaynes. “I contacted a couple of lawyers but they told me someone was trying to pull my leg…that judges don’t court order somebody to get married.”
Is this illegal? I think so, and so does a local attorney:
According to a local attorney, Rogers’ ruling was illegal.
“To say you’re not going to be criminally punished if you get married is way out of left field,” said attorney Blake Bailey. “It sounds like the old days of shotgun weddings, but not even the judge is capable of enforcing, what he thinks is best for some people in his court.”
Well, it’s too late to contest this ruling, and I wish the couple much happiness, but there’s one part of the story I’ve left out–the part that makes the judge’s ruling even more offensive:
Judge Rogers has refused to speak about the case or to defend some of his sentencing practices which included also demanding that Bundy write out Bible verses as part of his probation.
Now THAT can be contested as a violation of the First Amendment, but I doubt that Bundy will make a stink about it. It just shows the extreme religiosity of Texas, and how that impinges on the judicial system.
Here’s a television report:
h/t: Steve
Reblogged this on Cbcburke9's Blog.
First time I read this I thought it was a hoax. But it really isn’t. Unbelievable.
Of course, the judge didn’t for once consider what the girlfriend wanted. I assume he thinks all women want to get married.
Exactly! Who the hell does he think he is to impose what should be a serious lifelong commitment on two kids, even if at this stage they think it’s what they want? And for a misdemeanour? For goodness sake, they’re only 19 and 20. The judge probably thinks marriage and Jesus will settle him down, and it’s a woman’s role to do this anyway. A better option would be anger management classes, although they probably include prayer in Texas too.
To me this represents the casual misogyny in so much of society. This woman is seen as nothing more than a tool to be used as he see fit by this judge. It’s completely outrageous.
I predict divorce before 30.
“To me this represents the casual misogyny in so much of society.”
I think it’s much to blatant to be considered casual.
Frankly, I’m surprised they didn’t get divorced the next day.
Hear, hear.
I was going to say this as well.
And even if the woman did want to get married at some point, maybe she would’ve wound up selecting a different man.
Unconstitutional, all of it. The judge should be disbarred or at least heavily reprimanded. But this is Texas, the land of loony.
“Land of loony” is right, and I would know, since I live here. I never understood why Florida has the “crazy” reputation when nonsense like this is always happening in Texas.
god works in mysterious ways.
Texas judges… mysteriouser.
Not surprise that a Texas judge would violate the constitution. However, judges all around the country routinely coerce defendents in drug and alcohol cases to attend AA, which is essentially a religious cult.
“Cult” = to what these “sentences” so are! As re “coerce defendants in drug and alcohol cases to attend AA, which is essentially a religious cult,” this, as is likely known by many, is quite correct — and I happen to loathe it as, say, “justice done.” Not to mention as not – at – all: separation of state from religion.
Any such “12 – Step” program mentioning near its first steps something as re “a higher power” should make any one of those sitting attendees in these allegedly “anonymous” meetings’ initial recitations, rise up and flee away! Gone!
I happen to loathe all of these programs exactly for i) that religiosity, sometimes somewhat veiled and sometimes (in fact, usually) rather right out there in one’s face and for ii) the hypocrisy therein, in particular, the one known as Alcoholics Anonymous. An example thereof: “ … they understood our men as we did not!” and “Today most of our men are better husbands and fathers than ever before.” Those are words on pages 105 and 108 in chapter eight’s “to wives” of the big book regarding an alcoholic’s women, Mr Bill Wilson presenting that chapter AS IF his wife, Ms Lois Wilson, had scripted it when, IN FACT, he himself had –– all the while himself, during and after ending alcohol consumption, having countless sexual liaisons.
I don’t care one whit about her or his specific mucking behaviors, just these of their hypocrisies — of which, my having known too many such programs’ attendees some decades ago, I myself have personally witnessed same in nearly all of these meetings – goers’ comings and goings and thinkings and doings: their religiosities right alongside their hypocrisies.
Not at all UNlike persons of “just” churchiness, let alone, of crimes and misdemeanors.
Blue
Ooh, nice to get the dirt on Bill!
Oh, I’d write out some Bible verses for him all right!
I’d go all Old Testesment…
…or, as per the most-definitive version, the LOLcat Bible:
Is this not / I personally have never seen a difference ‘twixt this judicial behavior .FROM. that of any other states’ / nations’ religions’ mishmashing / mixing of its “laws” with woo ? (the y1911 work of Charlotte Perkins Gilman at where men, one or several of them, .trade. adult females and child brides = the definition of mawwiage, actually = Our Androcentric Culture: Or the Man – Made World.)
Men, in whatever positions they occupy Worldwide, want to believe they own and have control over women and girls.
Now with science, now with technology (such as that of The Greatest Scientific Invention Over All of Time Over All the World = that is, chemical birth control), THE only reason that there is AT ALL for woo and for ANY religions in this Age TO EXIST is only one, just one: to control female human beings.
As of Darling Waylon’s truth here, “It’s not supposed to be that way; you’re supposed to know I love you. But it don’t matter anyway if I can’t be there to control you” of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TyyL-T0ELcY&list=PLoWOwC4imIaJJ95ipHBn9Y6kLdIrBN34G&index=41.
I believe almost all men Worldwide, when all matters are honestly parsed ALL of the way down to their very cores, .know. this themselves. I believe almost all of them do .not. actually or truly believe the woo / the “scriptures” from which they preach.
They USE it. They use all woo for only one base / basic purpose: to control her (her … … with her uterus).
The judge consider or ask the woman of this “union” ‘fore pronouncing “sentence,” did he ? How is this any different than “honor” muck of other lands and woos now or of any other ancient times ?
As the mama of a Border immigration and legal aid – attorney Texan (of [announced just last week at his community’s meeting] 20,000 clients [needing .true. legal help : 1 lawyer – caseload !), this American “judge” needs to be from “the bench” / from actual Constitutional laws’ power – pronouncing … … gone.
Blue
Today’s, out of the lovely oeuvre of his over @ Salon and as I state re most men’s usage of versus the reality of their actually believing .any. superstitious, magical and wooish bloviation, Mr Jeffrey Tayler parses to DuhDonald’s intentions’ cores accurately thusly: “Try as he might to feign symptoms, Trump fails to convince that he’s really suffering from faith – derangement syndrome; he certainly exhibits no particular reverence for God, whom he might, one assumes, consider an equal. Christianity just seems to be one more thing he doesn’t really think much about, if he does have to wax religious for electoral purposes.” of http://www.salon.com/2015/08/09/donald_trumps_incoherent_megalomaniacal_religion_why_his_courting_of_evangelicals_reveals_the_depths_of_his_ignorance
Blue
Wouldn’t it be hilarious (well, at least this early in the cycle anyway when he appears to some to be ridin’ so high) to view and to hear the Far and Religious Right’s reactivity IF: DuhDonald would actually come right out and steadfastly state, as did Greece’s Mr Alexis Tsipras, that: among the so very many –ists which, indeed, Trump is, … … he is also (a practicing) atheist ?!
Blue
Yes ! the Freedom From Religion Foundation Girls and Boys challenge — with their Mighty UNdoin’s — in to Texan territory ! “FFRF lodges formal complaint against proselytizing Texas judge” of http://www.ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/23504-ffrf-lodges-formal-complaint-against-proselytizing-texas-judge
Blue
I wonder if the Judge had any specific verses in mind? If not then how about these?
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/bilecrvframe.htm
Well that’ll make a good start to their marriage, won’t it? Not that there are any rules that work for a happy marriage, but getting married too soon is probably a counter-indicator.
I hesitate to suggest that the couple should get divorced the following day, then continue their relationship (and eventually marry if that’s what they want), but it would be an appropriate slap in the face for this idiot judge.
And note, Bundy would have preferred jail rather than being forced into it, but the judge wouldn’t let him warn his employers – which (I guess) could have lost him his job. Wipe ‘idiot’ from the above, substitute ‘overbearing asshole’.
cr
Incidentally, compared with the judge’s crime against the couple, the bit about writing out bible verses is just silly trivia. I agree on principle it’s offensive and vexatious, but really it’s just [writing out a whole lot of meaningless junk], so probably better than doing jail time.
(Did the judge specify whether it had to be done in longhand?
“You are to write out 15 chapters of the Bible”.
“Yes sir, can I type it on my word processor?”
(Should be able to find the text online somewhere, copy & paste…)
cr
“Judge, can I write out my own version, like Thomas Jefferson?”
Time to find all those really weird verses. Like that one about burying your poop when you go camping.
Sounds like Texas. Judge is just following the lead of some of our Supremes – just make it up as you go.
Out there in small town west Texas they can pretty much do what they want. I would say that these folks – the guy and probably the girl are not from Texas. There is no accent. So if they are “out of towners”, that could account for some of this treatment.
Unless you are born there….you ain’t a Texan.
There are a LOT of people in this state, born and raised here, who do not have accents. Even away from the huge cities.
Here I was thinking that their obedient acquiescence (rather than contacting a decent attorney, or internet-shaming the judge, e.g.) reflected a small-town Texas education and/or upbringing…
The Eighth Amendment says “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”
I remember reading, many years ago, that the State of Texas had interpreted this as meaning an unusual punishment was permissible as long as it wasn’t cruel, and a cruel punishment was permissible as long as it wasn’t unusual.
I haven’t been able to find a link to prove it though.
I thought cruel punishments were not at all unusual in Texas…
cr
Yes, but the judge has a special set of robes for those kinds of proceedings.
I don’t think the marriage part is unconstitutional or illegal, despite what his attorney says. (Attorneys always say stuff like that, regardless of whether it’s true. The Bible verses part may violate the 1st Amendment, though.) Judges have wide latitude to offer creative alternative sentences, especially when the convict is given a choice between the normal sentence and the alternative. There’s certainly plenty of precedent for that.
Crazy thing is, this guy chose life in prison over a mere 15 days in prison! 😛
@ Adam M.
That may or may not be the way it is, but in my view it’s definitely not the way it should be. I believe the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against unusual punishment was meant to prevent judges from playing King Solomon by dreaming up fanciful and unprecedented sentences.
And a choice between a normal sentence and an alternative doesn’t change anything because a judge can simply impose a relatively harsh “normal” sentence that leaves the defendant with no practical choice.
I am certainly no lawyer but for constitutional law, they always like to go back and determine the “intent” when the thing was first put into play. James Madison was the guy who produced the Bill of Rights but that was simply fulfilling a duty he had to do after the first congress met. He started with over 100 Amendments from all over the country and got it down to 17. The Senate further reduced it to 12 and the states ratified 10 that became the bill of rights. Madison had originally thought they were a waste of time and they did not need them. That is why he was doing this two years after the Constitution had been written.
Anyway, what was considered excessive bail in 1789 verses today?? What was cruel and unusual punishment is also something very different today. So we are still stuck going over 200 years of law cases on the subject. I do not think a Judge can make someone get married or say, try marriage or go to jail.
“I don’t think the marriage part is unconstitutional or illegal, despite what his attorney says”.
I don’t know enough about US law to contest this but it is crazy if it is true. Forced marriage is regarded by the United Nations as a form of human rights abuse and the US State Department takes the same view: http://www.travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/emergencies/forced.html
Its advice states ‘International law recognizes the right of men and women of marriageable age to marry, and states that “no marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.”’. I don’t see why this would apply to – say – Pakistani girls forced by their families to marry against their will but not to the couple forced by the judge to marry.
I’m sure it’s not constitutional!
It wasn’t forced, though. He was convicted of a crime and would have been sentenced to jail normally. He was offered marriage as a way to avoid jail rather than jail being used as a threat to force him to marry.
That is surely a rather dubious argument? Whether he was a convicted criminal or not, the choice to marry was made under duress. That makes it a forced marriage. If the law demands that both intended spouses give free and full consent that precludes one or the other having a gun to his/her head, metaphorical or otherwise.
“He was offered marriage as a way to avoid jail rather than jail being used as a threat to force him to marry.”
And we can tell the difference – how?
cr
There are always sentencing guidelines judges are required to follow, I suspect even in 4th World backwater countries like Texas. There should be Administrative Office of the Courts Rules and Judicial Ethics and all that, but someone needs to do something, and in Texas that only means drawing and firing first. Judge Roy Bean sets the standard these days. I’d just as soon give Texas back to Mexico, pronto, being in New Mexico.
Hey! What have the Mexicans ever done to deserve that???
cr
Better yet, just let ’em secede.
OK, speaking as a lawyer now…I have to disagree with Adam M. I think that this sentence is clearly un-Constitutional. Even if you accept the idea that it is permissible as it relates to the man, with what crime has the woman been charged, such as would subject her to the jurisdiction of this so-called court at all?
Suppose that the guy said: “Your Honor, I absolutely submit to your sentence, and agree to marry this woman and write out Wholly Babble verses. There’s only one problem: the little woman won’t agree to do it.”
And the woman says: “He’s right; Your Honor; as difficult as it may be for you to wrap your Jabba-the-Hut head around it, I actually have other plans for next Tuesday, not to mention the next seventy years of my life. I have no interest in marrying this guy. So go fuck yourself.”
What would be the judge’s position then?
Obviously this clown’s “judgment” wouldn’t survive appeal–even in Texas. But the poor bastards appearing in front of him have precious little in the way of other remedies. I practice in California, so I’m running the risk of showing my ignorance here, but I would be shocked if the Texas rule is any different. Higher courts can undo their lunatic damage, and the Judicial Council (or whatever it’s called in Texas) can remove them for acts exactly like this one. But otherwise judges have absolute immunity–you can’t sue them for their acts as judges, no matter how insane.
I don’t think the judge was attempting to punish the woman or legally compel her to do anything. It is an interesting question what punishment he would have given the man if the woman refused to marry, though…
How can you say that he is not compelling the woman to do anything? He is forcing her to marry surely.
O golly, thank YOU, B’o F’o, for this one: “Wholly Babble verses” … …
I nearly wet something reading All of this of Yours.
Blue
Parts of Texas and Louisiana are beginning to resemble proto-theocracies, at least to the extent that judges and other government officials are getting away with this sort of unconstitutional abuse. Without anyone to challenge the legality of judicial rulings like this, they’ll undoubtedly keep at it.
Perhaps the poor guy should have offered the Judge the “Swabian salute”?
Unbelievable ! but as its Texas I’m not too surprised, I’ve heard enough of the ramblings of EX “praise be” Judge, Congressman Louis Gohmert , there is something inherently wrong in Electing Judges because you get idiots like the aforesaid Gohmert et al, they should be appointed as we do in the UK, we still get the odd idiot ,but in the main they’re very good.
I’m surprised Bundy went ahead with the marriage. I was expecting this to work out this way: Bundy takes the 15 days in jail and, upon exiting, tells his girlfriend, “I’m sorry, Honey. I’ve … met someone …”
Made me chuckle. 😀
I would’ve told E. Jaynes to think trice before marrying Bundy instead.
How did the Preacher of Ecclesiastes put it? “Insanity, insanity, all is insanity!”
Sometimes I am embarrassed that I live in this state.
I wonder what state, currently, would be the state one would be least embarrassed to live in?
The state of delusion is probably best, or Nirvana.
Amazing.
One correction: Smith County is in east Texas. It’s part of the state’s 1st Congressional district, which has been so kind as to provide the rest of us Louie Gohmert.
Could something like this happen in NW Texas? Unfortunately, I would not be surprised.
The dark ages were so named for a reason. Why is Texas trying to relive them?