Agreed, she should simply be fired, but unfortunately she can't.

Siva

On 9/14/15, Paul Brown <[address removed]> wrote:
>
>
>
> 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: @jona5451Skype: 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])
>> https://www.meetup...­
>> This message was sent by Meetup on behalf of Jon Anderson
>> (https://www.meetup...­) from
>> The Saint Paul Socrates Cafe.
>> Set my mailing list to email me
>>
>> As they are sent
>> https://www.meetup...­
>>
>> In one daily email
>> https://www.meetup...­
>>
>> Don't send me mailing list messages
>> https://www.meetup...­
>> 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]
>
> 	
>
>