Kim Davis Thrown In Jail

Sees · Sep 4, 2015

Skwim said:
What's wrong with a little jail time?

There is too much eagerness to lock people away, I'm not a personal fan of it. In a situation like this there definitely wasn't a need for it.

Twilight Hue · Sep 4, 2015

Sees said:
There is too much eagerness to lock people away, I'm not a personal fan of it. In a situation like this there definitely wasn't a need for it.

Agree. Scary stuff too.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

Shadow Wolf · Sep 4, 2015

Skwim said:
Do you actually contend that jail and prison should only be used for violent offenses?

Yes, I "actually" state that jail and prison should be reserved for those who pose a threat to the public. I don't care if someone gets their panties in a wad over gay marriage. I care if someone will cause harm to another. Those who would cause harm to another, those are the ones who need to be separated from the general public, for a time, until they have "calmed down" (such as a "drunk tank") or indefinitely if they may pose a risk to the public (such as the case with Anders Breivik). She is not a threat to you or me, thus I see no reason to confine her. If you break into someones house, you should be jailed; if you rape someone, you should be jailed; if you rob someone, you should be jailed; if you fail to live up to your oath but you pose zero risk and threat to the public and aren't likely to go out on a killing spree, you should not be jailed. She's already an example. She is, and will be for over 100 years, a precedence. I would hope that our legal system realizes it has more pressing issues to be concerned about that pose a possible and/or immediate threat to the public.

Skwim said:
She was not "put away"---nice exaggeration, by the way. She was put in jail until she agreed to abide by the court's ruling. Her choice.

It's not an exaggeration. When people are in jail or prison, what we do is essentially "put them away" in a "human warehouse."

Skwim said:
What's wrong with a little jail time?

In the case of Kim Davis, she does not pose a risk, danger, or threat to anyone. No one is going to be harmed by her walking the streets. She may have had a tangle between her religious convictions and her legal obligations, but that doesn't mean she is going to go out and rob, steal, plunder, pillage, rape, burn, or other crimes that would necessitate someone being separated from the general public. She is misguided, perhaps, but she poses no threat to the general public. Because she poses no threat - to anyone - I just do not see any reason she should be jailed.

Curious George · Sep 4, 2015

Shadow Wolf said:
Yes, I "actually" state that jail and prison should be reserved for those who pose a threat to the public. I don't care if someone gets their panties in a wad over gay marriage. I care if someone will cause harm to another. Those who would cause harm to another, those are the ones who need to be separated from the general public, for a time, until they have "calmed down" (such as a "drunk tank") or indefinitely if they may pose a risk to the public (such as the case with Anders Breivik). She is not a threat to you or me, thus I see no reason to confine her. If you break into someones house, you should be jailed; if you rape someone, you should be jailed; if you rob someone, you should be jailed; if you fail to live up to your oath but you pose zero risk and threat to the public and aren't likely to go out on a killing spree, you should not be jailed. She's already an example. She is, and will be for over 100 years, a precedence. I would hope that our legal system realizes it has more pressing issues to be concerned about that pose a possible and/or immediate threat to the public.

It's not an exaggeration. When people are in jail or prison, what we do is essentially "put them away" in a "human warehouse."

In the case of Kim Davis, she does not pose a risk, danger, or threat to anyone. No one is going to be harmed by her walking the streets. She may have had a tangle between her religious convictions and her legal obligations, but that doesn't mean she is going to go out and rob, steal, plunder, pillage, rape, burn, or other crimes that would necessitate someone being separated from the general public. She is misguided, perhaps, but she poses no threat to the general public. Because she poses no threat - to anyone - I just do not see any reason she should be jailed.

A common example of contempt of court is when a parent refuses to pay child or spousal support. Are you suggesting that people like this not be placed in contempt of court? Or are you proposing that we void the power to detain as a punishment for contempt of court?

Skwim · Sep 4, 2015

Sees said:
There is too much eagerness to lock people away, I'm not a personal fan of it. In a situation like this there definitely wasn't a need for it.

Well, there isn't much alternative. As pointed out elsewhere, any fine they may have laid on her would be readily paid from donations made by her supporters. Not a dime would have to come from her own pockets.

Skwim · Sep 4, 2015

Shadow Wolf said:
Yes, I "actually" state that jail and prison should be reserved for those who pose a threat to the public. I don't care if someone gets their panties in a wad over gay marriage. I care if someone will cause harm to another. Those who would cause harm to another, those are the ones who need to be separated from the general public, for a time, until they have "calmed down" (such as a "drunk tank") or indefinitely if they may pose a risk to the public (such as the case with Anders Breivik). She is not a threat to you or me, thus I see no reason to confine her. If you break into someones house, you should be jailed; if you rape someone, you should be jailed; if you rob someone, you should be jailed; if you fail to live up to your oath but you pose zero risk and threat to the public and aren't likely to go out on a killing spree, you should not be jailed. She's already an example. She is, and will be for over 100 years, a precedence. I would hope that our legal system realizes it has more pressing issues to be concerned about that pose a possible and/or immediate threat to the public.

The issue here isn't one of threat, but "violent offenses."

It's not an exaggeration. When people are in jail or prison, what we do is essentially "put them away" in a "human warehouse."

I give up. Have a good day.

Sees · Sep 4, 2015

Skwim said:
Well, there isn't much alternative. As pointed out elsewhere, any fine they may have laid on her would be readily paid from donations made by her supporters. Not a dime would have to come from her own pockets.

I guess I see it as just a "if you can't play by the rules, then you don't get to play" type of situation. I don't see a need for a large fine or jail time...loss of position and being sent on her way being good enough.

Shadow Wolf · Sep 4, 2015

Curious George said:
A common example of contempt of court is when a parent refuses to pay child or spousal support. Are you suggesting that people like this not be placed in contempt of court? Or are you proposing that we void the power to detain as a punishment for contempt of court?[/QUOTE]
I don't support jail in that instance either, because putting the owing parent in jail will not catch them up on child support, and it can make it harder for them to pay. I am not saying that we void the power, but rather we make the punishment proportionate to the crime. If you aren't harming anyone, you shouldn't be put away. If you are likely to go steal, rape, kill, plunder, and pillage, you need to be separated from the general public for the sake, safety, and well being of the public. But if you pose zero threat to anyone, jail is not suitable because there are no valid reasons as to why you should be put away and separated from the general public. Give them fines, community service, whatever. But those jail spaces should be reserved for those who have committed crimes that warrant their being separated from the general public, those who have stolen, raped, murdered, or other crimes that pose a real threat and danger to others. As for this Kim Davis, she'll get to live knowing her Christian values are being replaced with Secular values, and, ideally, that she will not be able to again serve in a public office, and to serve as a warning to those who would bring their personal religious convictions into the public realm.
What has received little attention though is how some are putting her up to a martyr status. Even impeaching her would grant her this, but jailing her reinforces it and makes the position stronger. Oaths mean something, and they should mean something, but if you don't pose a risk to the public your bed in jail should be going to someone who is violent, who is a thief, murderer, rapist, or someone else who poses a threat to the general public.

Skwim said:

I give up. Have a good day.

Click to expand...

Then you are giving up on approaching and learning about jail and prisons for what they are. We don't rehabilitate criminals in America, we don't try and make them productive members of society, and many do not even want to educate them to give them a chance at a life better than a criminal life once they are out. We put them away for a time, let them out, and most of them get put away again because we put them away in the first place to be someone else's problem rather than taking up responsibility to help people realize their is a better way. But, then again, most people do not even want to learn about what leads to crime in the first place, what makes it appealing, and why for some it is an economic solution. We don't deal with that here, we don't think about it, and we don't try to prevent it. We just put them away for a time, let them out, and put them away again, and again, and again, even though many are in only because they could not see any other means or solutions to their current issues, no one bothered to help them find a better way, and everybody else seemingly gave up on them. We also do not address the economic reasons that lead to crime. Years ago I made a lot of money from scrapping houses of wires and tubes and shoplifting and selling those items for money. For a few hours spent at "the scene" and a few spent stripping wires, it paid great. There are very few good job opportunities around here, and combined with some other issues, it provided for me in ways that a legal job won't. Such ways I have put behind me, but locally things are no different. I could flip burgers for an amount of money that won't provide enough to live off of, or I could spend a day ripping out wires and tubes and make enough to sustain myself for a few weeks.
They say crime doesn't pay, but the harsh reality is is that it does pay as long as you aren't caught, which statistically, depending on the type of crime, it may be a very remote and slim chance you'll be caught. This is an issue that we, as a society, do not deal with. We don't address the reasons that create crime, but we'll put people away while maintaining the reasons that lead to them doing something that got them put away in the first place.

Skwim · Sep 4, 2015

Sees said:
I guess I see it as just a "if you can't play by the rules, then you don't get to play" type of situation. I don't see a need for a large fine or jail time...loss of position and being sent on her way being good enough.

But this would take time, time in which she would continue to deny homosexuals marriage licenses. Nope, she had to be stopped immediately, and with consequences for ignoring a court order. It's why jail time and fines are paid in a timely fashion.

Iti oj · Sep 4, 2015

Nakosis said:
I suppose he is right isn't he, but really this was always the case. You can't use religious belief as a defense for breaking the law.

no he is not

Sees said:
There is too much eagerness to lock people away, I'm not a personal fan of it. In a situation like this there definitely wasn't a need for it.

What should the judge have done? fine her? money would have been raised in hours online in her name. so then what? Do what?

Sees · Sep 4, 2015

Iti oj said:
What should the judge have done? fine her? money would have been raised in hours online in her name. so then what? Do what?

Find a way to swap her out as quickly as possible, in my opinion. Trust me I won't cry over this lady...but still won't rally with the "punish her!!!" sentiment or there being detainment for this type of stuff.

Iti oj · Sep 4, 2015

Sees said:
Find a way to swap her out as quickly as possible, in my opinion. Trust me I won't cry over this lady...but still won't rally with the "punish her!!!" sentiment or there being detainment for this type of stuff.

I don't think the judge has that power in this situation. She can't be fired, needs to be impeached. Its not about punishing her.

Shad · Sep 4, 2015

jeager106 said:
Thanks. I was having trouble finding it.
So Kim is in jail for not following the order of the court? (da judge)

Here is something I found interesting:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/muslim-flight-attendant-expressjet-airlines-alcohol/

A Muslim flight attendant filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming she was suspended from her job for not serving alcohol, which is against her religious beliefs, CBS Detroit station WWJ-AM reports.

Lena Masri, an attorney for the Council on American-Islamic Relations Michigan, said Charee Stanley followed management's directions, working out an arrangement with her coworkers to accommodate passenger requests for alcohol.

However, Masri said, ExpressJet Airlines put Stanley on administrative leave after another attendant filed "an Islamophobic complaint" that referenced Stanley's head scarf.

"We notified ExpressJet Airlines of its obligation under the law to reasonably accommodate Ms. Stanley's religious beliefs," Masri said at a news conference in Farmington Hills on Tuesday. "Instead, ExpressJet close to violate Ms. Stanely's constitutional rights, placed her on administrative leave for 12 months, after which her employment may be administratively terminated."

One is a government official, one is not. Figure it out

Sees · Sep 4, 2015

Iti oj said:
I don't think the judge has that power in this situation. She can't be fired, needs to be impeached. I not about punishing her.

It's something that definitely needs worked on so such a situation is better handled in the future.

If only this lady had heeded the scriptural message to "be not of this world"...things would have been better for everybody involved.

Nakosis · Sep 4, 2015

Iti oj said:
no he is not

Yes he is.

Iti oj · Sep 4, 2015

Nakosis said:
Yes he is.

wait which he?

fantome profane · Sep 4, 2015

Shadow Wolf said:
In the case of Kim Davis, she does not pose a risk, danger, or threat to anyone. No one is going to be harmed by her walking the streets.

But what exactly constitutes a threat? What exactly constitutes harm?

People have a right to get married, and when that right is interfered with that does in fact cause harm. She is not a physical threat, but physical violence is not the only way that we recognize harm. Theft, vandalism etc. In this case this women is denying them the ability to exercise the rights as the courts have defined them. And this is causing harm and suffering. She has no right to do this, the courts have clearly stated that. And she is threatening to continue doing it. She is causing harm and threatening to continue to cause harm.

I don't like the idea of seeing her in jail, I am not a vindictive person. I would rather see her resign and find a different job where she can be happy and productive and not be in a position to deny people their rights. But she is refusing this option. If she will not resign, if she will not comply with the court and do her job, then jail is the only option. She is doing this to herself. And she can get out of jail whenever she chooses to.

Nakosis · Sep 4, 2015

Iti oj said:
wait which he?

Whoever you are disagreeing with me on.

Whoever said they were criminalizing Christianity. Civil laws in a secular country should not respect religious belief. I'm fine with religious folks practicing their beliefs as long as they aren't breaking any laws.

Yes it's a little bit of hyperbole, but they are realizing that their Christian faith is no excuse for refusing to follow a court ordered ruling in this case. I don't think we can let religious folks start thinking they can ignore our legal system.

I think some Christians feel their religion should be the exception to this. I'm glad they realize they need to follow the law just like everyone else.

Nakosis · Sep 4, 2015

Shadow Wolf said:
In the case of Kim Davis, she does not pose a risk, danger, or threat to anyone. No one is going to be harmed by her walking the streets. She may have had a tangle between her religious convictions and her legal obligations, but that doesn't mean she is going to go out and rob, steal, plunder, pillage, rape, burn, or other crimes that would necessitate someone being separated from the general public. She is misguided, perhaps, but she poses no threat to the general public. Because she poses no threat - to anyone - I just do not see any reason she should be jailed.

You are a very caring person but we can't start letting folks disobeying the law, even if they are publicly elected officials.

She's refusing to recognize the legal authority of the United States. If people feel that upholding the law is going to conflict with their religious beliefs, they shouldn't be running for office.

columbus · Sep 4, 2015

Shadow Wolf said:
. Because she poses no threat - to anyone - I just do not see any reason she should be jaile

I still think you are overemphasizing an otherwise valid point. The USA does overuse jail time. But this case is unique and jail is both the only option and it is voluntary on Davis part.
Removing her from office would require the governor to take a politically damaging position. Fines would be happily paid by other people. The judge gave her three options. Do the job, let someone else do the job, or go to jail. She picked jail.
She is pretty much picking everything, it is the rest of us stuck with her choices.
Tom

Kim Davis Thrown In Jail

Dragonslayer

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Certified People sTabber

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Dragonslayer

Certified People sTabber

Veteran Member

Global warming is real and we need to act

Dragonslayer

Global warming is real and we need to act

Veteran Member

Dragonslayer

Non-Binary Physicalist

Global warming is real and we need to act

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice

Non-Binary Physicalist

Non-Binary Physicalist

yawn <ignore> yawn