Originally Posted by
ru12 
Some jurisdictions do NOT send anyone to AA as it has been ruled "inheriently religious" and thus violates the separation clause. It is my understanding that even the jurisdictions that use AA offer attendance in lieu of prosecution. There is a choice to be made by the offender: go to AA or go to jail. Some jurisdictions offer AA or an alternative like SMART or Life Ring.
This is true, the result of 3 recent federal appeals court decisions (1996, 1997, 2007) which cover several states. (NY, CT, IL, WI, CA, OR, WA, AZ and others)
Forced participation in AA/NA is no longer permitted unless there is a secular option for the parolee to chose from, such as SOS, SMARTRecovery, Rational Recovery, LifeRing.
Importantly, but off topic, is that this case law is based on AA/NA being a religious entity. There was little, if any, legal dispute about this issue. These were all cases about contended violations of the establishment clause in the 1st Amendment.
Increasingly, the trend is to legally regard AA/NA a religious organization or process. We have staved off this rather unpleasant adjudication for many years. But we're seeing the end of that honeymoon, I suspect.
Originally Posted by
Sugah One group in our district did, and then later, changed its mind. When it came to light how many of our longer-term members got their start in AA "at the suggestion of the judge," they realized it was not theirs to decide how someone should or should not come into knowledge about the message of sobriety.
This is important wisdom of AA. There should be no categories or qualifications put upon newcomers other than that mentioned in Tradition 3. We learned this on the anvils of experience beginning in 1939. Unfortunately, we continue to need refresher courses.