Jon,
    The fact that brief incarceration for contempt of court is common does not make it just. Davis was jailed for six days and I'm sure she would not describe that as brief. Gail and Siva believe she is not to be taken seriously and describe her as pathetic, two good reasons to be lenient. While it may be gratifying to see someone who is practicing hateful discrimination receive a comeuppance of six days in jail, it is not just or reasonable. The power to deprive a citizen of all their liberties through incarceration should be used sparingly, as a last resort with specific goals in mind. One just goal of incarceration is to keep the public safe from violent criminals. Deterrence is often cited as a goal of incarceration, but every time a crime is committed deterrence has failed. Another goal is retribution which can also be described as revenge. There is a good argument for the state holding a monopoly on retribution. It prevents all out wars between families or groups who would take revenge into their own hands. Retribution should not enter into the case of a county clerk and marriage licenses but it may have played a part in this case. The U.S. justice system is too quick to throw it's citizens in jail when other alternatives are available. Even misguided, ignorant and hateful citizens are entitled to those alternatives.

Paul
 

---

From: [address removed]
Subject: Re: [The-Saint-Paul-Socrates-Cafe] Kim Davis
To: [address removed]
Date: Sat, 12 Sep[masked]:28:44 -0400

Paul,

 

Brief incarceration is common for the offense known as contempt of court. It is imposed whenever a judge decides someone in their courtroom does not respect its authority, which inside a courtroom is nearly absolute. 

 

The judge ordered her to issue marriage licenses. Her refusal to do so reasonably satisfies the commonly held definition and understanding of contempt of court. 

 

My impression is that contempt of court impositions are as much about "getting someone's attention" as they are about punishment. She seems to have neither been punished nor to have had her attention adequately focused by her incarceration as the judge wished. We'll see. 

===============================================

If there is a problem you can do nothing about, why be upset? If there is a problem you can do something about, why be upset?

 

Twitter: @jona5451

Skype: aspiejon

On Sep 12, 2015, at 12:55 PM, Paul Brown <[address removed]> wrote:

To justify punishment we must specify, first, what our goals are in establishing (or perpetuating) the practice itself. Second, we must show that when we punish we actually achieve these goals. Third, we must show that we cannot achieve these goals unless we punish (and punish in certain ways and not in others) and that we cannot achieve them with comparable or superior efficiency and fairness by nonpunitive interventions. Fourth, we must show that striving to achieve these goals by way of the imposition of deprivations is itself justified. 
Bedau, Hugo Adam and Kelly, Erin, "Punishment", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
 
Paul

 

> Subject: RE: [The-Saint-Paul-Socrates-Cafe] Kim Davis
> From: [address removed]
> To: [address removed]
> Date: Fri, 11 Sep[masked]:45:27 -0400
>
> Paul,
>
> This woman is in no way powerless. According to Kentucky law, she is THE county authority concerning the issuance of licenses. She singlehandedly denied marriage licenses, ordering her deputies to do the same.
>
> She is guilty of abusing that power. She is in no way a victim with the possible exception of her preacher.
>
> Last, the accommodation made was to empower her deputies to issue licenses, rendering her powerless. Should she now be jailed THAT would be unfair. The court's handling up go now has been correct.
>
> Wherever you go, there you are.
>
> On Sep 11,[masked]:48 PM, Paul Brown <[address removed]> wrote:
> >
> > I share Jon and Gail's frustration with Ms. Davis' actions. I also take exception to the U.S. judicial system's cavalier attitude toward incarcerating it's citizens. I refer to Ms. Davis' case precisely because she is an unsympathetic character. Incarceration as a result of civil disobedience is common in the U.S. and victims often wear it as a badge of courage. Ms. Davis' is now a hero to those who share her views as evidenced by the rally with Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee upon her release. Government is powerful, Hobbes referred to it as a Leviathan. The exercise of that power should come with a heavy dose of understanding and leniency toward the relatively powerless individual, especially when that individual's views are shared by a minority. Because the judge found an alternative to Ms. Davis issuing the marriage license, and because Ms. Davis views are shared by a large segment of the population (37%), Davis should have been found in contempt of court and fined $1. Something that is missing in our court system is mediation. Davis and the gay couple should have been able to deliberate with the help of a mediator. It's true that the issue has already been deliberated by the courts but citizens are excluded from that process. A conference between the two parties, aided by a cool headed mediator may have resulted in a settlement in which both sides came away feeling they had been dealt with fairly. The court system is built to pick winners and losers. In this case, as Jesus said, "The last shall be first and the first shall be last." 
> >     Gail, I thought Sigrid's question was in the Socratic tradition and found myself identifying with Meno.
> > Paul 
> >  
> > ________________________________
> > From: [address removed]
> > Subject: Re: [The-Saint-Paul-Socrates-Cafe] Kim Davis
> > To: [address removed]
> > Date: Fri, 11 Sep[masked]:13:10 -0400
> >
> > A reporter gets to withhold sources of information in order to maintain first amendment protections. No such dynamic exists for the actions of this Kentucky county clerk. 
> >
> > There is no history of religious persecution in America. The separation of church and state is constitutionally required, and her actions directly threaten that. 
> >
> > If her conscience prevents her from issuing marriage licenses, then the correct action to take is to resign over the issue, thereby avoiding the histrionic, theatrical politics we suffer from now. I welcome her right to her opinions. I deny her a right to govern for God. 
> >
> > Marriage is, as you write, a contract between two people. And in America it has always been our government which adjudicates the enforcement of contracts. This is why marriage must be a concern of our government. 
> >
> > It doesn't matter whether or not the county clerk is sincere. She is a functionary of the Kentucky county governmental system. If her sincerely held beliefs conflict with her responsibilities as county clerk she is morally obligated to resign so that the constitutionally mandated job responsibilities of a county clerk in Kentucky are fulfilled. 
> >
> > ===============================================
> > If there is a problem you can do nothing about, why be upset? If there is a problem you can do something about, why be upset?
> >
> > Twitter: @jona5451
> > Skype: aspiejon
> >
> > On Sep 10, 2015, at 1:07 PM, Paul Brown <[address removed]> wrote:
> >
> >>  Kim Davis' incarceration and the events leading up to it, present a number of philosophical questions. First she made a decision not to issue marriage licenses, claiming that she could not do so in good conscience. Is a person obligated to follow their conscience when it conflicts with the law? Another issue is the state's involvement in marriage. Should the state be issuing marriage licenses? A judge put Kim Davis in jail for failure to follow a court order. Should the state have the right to punish it's citizens? Another question came up in our discussion. Do we need to respect opinions that we disagree with, even if we believe they are insincere or misinformed?
> >>     People are considered courageous when they defy the law to stay true to their own values or beliefs. A good example is a reporter who goes to jail rather than identify his source. It is an American tradition to defy the law when it conflicts with our conscience.    
> >>     The state should not be issuing marriage licenses. Marriage should be an agreement or contract between two people. There is not a need for state involvement and the Kim Davis case is a great example of why the state should not be involved. The conflict of conscience that Kim Davis had was brought about by the state requiring her to approve of marriages, by signing each marriage license.
> >>     Kim Davis should not have been incarcerated because there were alternative solutions to the issue. Her deputies are now  issuing marriage licenses without Ms. Davis signature. Allowances are made for conscientious objectors during wartime and Ms. Davis should have been allowed that alternative without being incarcerated.
> >>     Sincerity is difficult to judge. Is Kim Davis just using a bible passage as cover for a hateful prejudice? Maybe, but we are required to overcome our own prejudice, assume that she is sincere in her beliefs and deal with her fairly.
> >> Paul
> >>  
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
> >> This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Paul Brown from The Saint Paul Socrates Cafe.
> >> To report this message or block the sender, please click here
> >> Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages
> >>
> >> Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
> > This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Jon Anderson from The Saint Paul Socrates Cafe.
> > To report this message or block the sender, please click here
> > Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages
> >
> > Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
> > This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Paul Brown from The Saint Paul Socrates Cafe.
> > To report this message or block the sender, please click here
> > Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages
> >
> > Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]
>
>
> --
> Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
> http://www.meetup.com/The-Saint-Paul-Socrates-Cafe/
> This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Jon Anderson (http://www.meetup.com/The-Saint-Paul-Socrates-Cafe/members/1210367/) from The Saint Paul Socrates Cafe.
> Set my mailing list to email me
>
> As they are sent
> http://www.meetup.com/The-Saint-Paul-Socrates-Cafe/list_prefs/?pref=1
>
> In one daily email
> http://www.meetup.com/The-Saint-Paul-Socrates-Cafe/list_prefs/?pref=2
>
> Don't send me mailing list messages
> http://www.meetup.com/The-Saint-Paul-Socrates-Cafe/list_prefs/?pref=0
> Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]
>

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Paul Brown from The Saint Paul Socrates Cafe.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Jon Anderson from The Saint Paul Socrates Cafe.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Paul Brown from The Saint Paul Socrates Cafe.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

--
Please Note: If you hit "REPLY", your message will be sent to everyone on this mailing list ([address removed])
This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Jon Anderson from The Saint Paul Socrates Cafe.
To report this message or block the sender, please click here
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]