Sent back to jail for being an atheist?
By laglen
@laglen (19759)
United States
April 19, 2010 9:33am CST
http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/17/2685285/judge-backs-redding-atheist-who.html
Barry A. Hazle Jr. served a year in prison on a drug charge. After he got out, his parole agent sent him back for being an atheist.
Now, the 41-year-old Redding computer technician has won a ruling from a Sacramento federal judge against the state and stands to collect damages for having his constitutional rights violated.
Even before U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. decided in his favor last week, California corrections officials had issued a new policy protecting the rights of atheist parolees.
"This has been a long and painful process for me," Hazle said in a statement through his attorney this week. "The judge's ruling can't give me back my lost freedom, but it begins to restore my faith in our judicial system."
Hazle's fight with the state over religion began Feb. 27, 2007, when he was paroled from the California Rehabilitation Center, Norco, where he did a year for drug possession.
As a condition of his release, Hazle was ordered to attend a 90-day, inpatient drug treatment program. He agreed to the program but even before his release told prison officials he wanted to be sent to a "treatment facility that did not contain religious components," federal court papers state.
Instead, he was assigned to the Empire Recovery Center in Redding, a 12-step program pioneered by Alcoholics Anonymous and featuring a strong religious overtone, utilizing references to God and "a higher power."
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/17/2685285/judge-backs-redding-atheist-who.html#ixzz0lYZgzkyi
Do you think this was legitimate? I do not think he should have been forced to attend a faith based program. There are plenty of other programs available. Now the guy will get tax money paid to him because his parole officer was being a butt head.
1 response
@TheMetallion (1834)
• United States
19 Apr 10
A Parole Officer is an agent of the government who hired them and acts in their name. If they act illegally in that capacity, it is entirely appropriate that the government be held accountable for failing to prevent the inappropriate behavior, either by giving proper training or by not identifying them as someone who would ignore that training.
1 person likes this



