Read the following posting and respond to the question. Does the First Amendment cover the defendant when it comes to the issue of freedom of religion?
http://www.courttv.com/trials/jeffs/111907_ctv.html?cnn=yes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I think technically speaking the defendant's freedom of religion is covered, but there are other issues at hand, and this is a case in which the judge may interpret the constitution. Although his freedom of religion may be covered according to the constitution, he is still breaking the law in regards to Elissa Wall. Also the judge may decide that the freedom of religion doesn't apply to this case.
inAlthough the defendants religious beliefs are shaky, and inconsistent I think that his First Amendment rights of religion is covered. There are still other matters at hand like the fact that his "religion" is supposedly allowing for him to forcibly marry Elissa Wall. That fact, and the things that he did to her will probably be seen as more important to the jury than the First Amendment rights. Say somebody had their own religion that encouraged the sacrifice of young children. Even with the First Amendment this still doesn't make it acceptable for him to take a gun and go into a kindergarten and shoot the kids. Although his "religion" is protected by the First Amendments his actions still need to follow the laws set forth by our state, and federal government.
I think that in this case, the defendant's freedom of religion is covered. Even though his freedom of religion is covered, he still broke the law. Also, religion doesn't play a huge part in this case so it could just be set aside because the other broken law is bigger than that of religion.
I don't think that this case falls under the freedom of religion. Yes, everyone should be free to practice what they believe, but they can't force these beliefs on other people. Even though he didn't actually marry the girl to her cousin, he still forced her to do something that she didn't want to do in the name of his religion.
I also agree that the defendents religous beleifs and actions are covered, but only may a 14 year old be married if they have the approval of the court or a previous marrige..... So the marrige in itself was not leagally binding...So there are many other issues at hand, but it wasn't legal for them to consumate the marrige because in the state of utah it wasn't a marrige. So actually he wasn't within his religious rights to force his eliefs upon a minor
I think the defendant's freedom of religion was covered by the First Amendment. However, it did not give him the right to force two people to get married. Warren Jeffs could believe whatever he wanted, but he was not allowed to break the law.
I think that the defendant's freedom is covered. Just because his freedom of religion was covered that doesn't mean he can go arougn breaking the law. He broke the law when he tried to force two young people together because of his "religion." I think he might have also tried to take advantage of his freedom of religion which he can not do.
I think his religious beliefs are covered but like Aliza said, he can't force them upon someone else. To complete his rights of religion he had to take them away from someone else and that is against the law. I agree with Emily when she say's freedom of religion may aply to this case.
Well, I think that the freedom of religion was covered. I don't think it was right, but I don't think the article said if the girl was of that religion. If that was part of their religion, then I believe it is protected under the first amendment. He was breaking the law though,and what he did was not right.
This cannot be covered in the First amendment. There is no excuse for incest, or being an accomplice to rape. This is illegal and morally unjust. Jeffs' lawyers are going to push hard for this to be dismissed on the grounds of his constitutional rights being broken. The lawyers are also saying the evidence against him in even if he is "covered" by the First amendment, they should bypass that for "safety sake of young women"
or some fancy law term for taking someones rights for the better of the country. "Jeffs married them in a legally nonbinding ceremony in a Nevada hotel." If the ceremony is nonbinding then I think kidnapping or accessory should be added to his charges for forceably keeping Wall with her cousin against her will. I think the court should stick with the Utah Court of Appeals' decision on Tom Green and keep the same precedent that polygamy, even in religion, is illegal, and not to menton morally irreprehensible.
His religous beliefs are protected, No matter how whacky his ideas are.
Forcing a child to marry a 19 year old is just plain sick. The first amendment also protects people from religion. Ellisa wall may not believe the same thing as Jeffs and has freedom from his beliefs.
There is some controversy here. Jeffs' freedom of religion is protected by the first amendment, but the first amendment does not protect people of ANY religion to commit acts of violence. Things like rape, under the first amendment, are not pardoned. I think that the judge would rule against Jeffs.
In this case, I don't think that the defendant's freedom of religion is covered because he is forcing his religious beliefs onto these children. He coaxed the girl that she had to be faithful to the religion for her to be accepted. What I do think though is that the defendant shouldn't be the only one to take the blame. The family also took some part in the situation because they also forced Miss Wall into marriage.
i don't feel that the defendant's rights are covered. i feel since he wasn't the one who was being married, then his rights really don't play a role in this case. he forced two people to marry. it's those people's rights that were violated, not the defendant. like rachel said, i don't see a huge issue of religion here.
I feel that the defendant shouldnt be legaly saved because of religon. IF you allow people to allow rape and even encorage it then you cant tell what it will lead to. This may be a far reach but if this gets allowed then religous killing can be allowed and groups like the KKK could be protected by religous protection laws.
I think that the defendant's religious beliefs should not protect him in this case. In other times I do think that it might be able to protect him. In this case however his religion is affecting other people besides himself. He is forcing people, specifically children to marry and preform acts that are against there will. His religion is hurting others. Murderers might kill because it is in their religion but they are still punished for their crimes. So should he. If he was doing something like petitioning something or something that does not involve hurting people then yes he should be protected. This case of forcing adolecents to do something just doesn't fit that critieria.
i think that the defendant's freedom of religion is covered. but it can get confusing because the plaintifs freedom of religion has to be covered too. but if you think about the plaintif is in the wrong because you can not force a religon on some one.
I don't think that the defendant's freedom of religion is covered. You can't force someone to believe what you believe in. She was forced to do something she didn't want to do. It was against her free will. I think he was wrong with what he was doing.
The First Amendment does protect the freedom of religion but in this case this guy shouldn't be protected. He broke the law becuase he married someone that is over the age of 18 to a minor and he didn't just marry them he forced Elissa Wall to marry this guy. But in this case it is up to the judge to decide if it is unconstitutional or not and they may think that this case doesn't fall under freedom of religion!
Post a Comment