Fwiw,
I believe there is NO Criminal Court in the United States that can order anyone to go to AA absent the offender’s agreement – and parolees have significantly less constitutional rights than non-felons. Of course, the case Rob cited is a Ninth Circuit case, and its decision applies only to those Courts within it’s jurisdiction (thus far; this includes all of California). Only once the Supreme Court of the United States makes such a ruling will it apply nationwide (unless each of the Circuit Courts make the same ruling independent of the Supreme Court and these decisions are not over turned by Supreme Court).
However, AA may be provided as an option to those punishments prescribed by a State’s Penal Code (providing the punishment fits the crime) in those jurisdictions whose courts have not ruled this a form of “Religious Coercion,” thereby finding it to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
So, even in those jurisdictions that allow AA as an alternative, it is always a choice. The offender may always choose the Penal Code’s prescribed punishment for the crime of which he has pled, or been found, guilty.
Personally, I want to say that I prefer that offenders be informed about AA, but not given it an option in lieu of the prescribed punishment, because all but the most indignant offender will choose to go to AA over going to jail – not to get sober, but because it is “easier time.” But then if someone gets it because they chose AA over jail, then maybe it’s worth allowing those with no desire to stop drinking into “open” AA meetings.