I feel she should not have participated in the murder case, find another job. But I still respect her for holding to her opnions/beliefs and going to jail for them. Now there’s another contradiction.
I’m just flabbergasted that in this country having arrived at a moral decision though reason and concern for your fellow human being is deemed to be less worthy than arriving at the same conclusion via imaginary bearded asshats in the sky.
I support her entirely. This is a well-known aspect of her religion, not some made-up bullshit like the cake cases.
And there is no actual reason that she needs to violate her beliefs. She’s only being asked about information, and that information has already been gathered. Anyone who can read it could report the same information. And if they want an expert, there are plenty of others in her field of expertise. Reasonable accommodations for her beliefs could be made.
It is thus entirely inappropriate to pull out the indefinite detention powers for contempt. It’s already something that I find problematic, as it creates an extremely high punishment for relatively small offenses. So, at the very least, it should be restricted to those times when it is actually necessary.
If they wanted to fire her and have her successor handle it, that wouldn’t bother me. They could argue that it’s a part of her job and she failed to do it. But they are jumping to indefinite suspension. And that is just a form of cruelty.
And, yes, I believed the same thing about Kim Davis. She should have been removed from office. Maybe fined or punished in some way. But holding her in jail until she breaks was cruel. There is a reason we have due process in this country instead of letting people be jailed as long as the person in power wants. But that goes away with a judge, and is a large part of why I hate our justice system.
This case is not about whether or not the defendant is guilty. It’s about whether or not he had effective representation. She’s not being asked to testify about the information she gathered - she’s being asked to testify about the quality of the original defense representation, which will presumably include questions about *how *she conducted her investigation rather than simply the results of it. And her objection seems to be hair-splitting as she is apparently willing to testify if the court calls her as a witness but not in response to the prosecutor’s subpoena. In other words, she doesn’t object to testifying itself. Her objection is not really based on the fact that her testimony could result in the defendant losing his appeal and remaining under a death sentence since that could happen even if the court called her as a witness. It appears that her objection is simply to being the prosecution’s witness. That’s a religious objection I don’t understand - she’s willing to give the same testimony with the same results as long as she’s the court’s witness, not the prosecution’s.
tl;dr – pacifism focuses on actions taken, not the results that ensue.
As I understand pacifism,* the point is not to minimize violence but live in a peaceful manner and trust God to handle the rest. For example, if you had to choose between killing one person or allowing that one person to kill twenty, the clear (if painful) choice for a pacifist is to allow that one person to act as their own moral agent. Saving lives and preventing death are both considered good and worthy goals, but pacifism doesn’t imply a moral imperative to prevent violence at any cost; the only strict imperative is to act peacefully, which is most clearly violated by acting violently. It might be considered noble if one chose to join the twenty and die with them in solidarity, or to linger in prison for refusing to cooperate with government actions that one disagrees with, but those choice are not required by pacifism. Put another way, pacifism doesn’t require a person to do everything possible to prevent a homicide from occurring; there is only a strong encouragement to do what is reasonable to prevent violence and a strict prohibition against participating in the act.
So the question comes down to when one becomes a participant in the act. At one extreme, it is plausible for someone to believe that paying taxes to a government that enforces a death penalty is sufficient to be an instrument of that death, and so that person’s only morally defensible choice is to join another society. The other extreme might be that the only act that matters it the last physical action that leads to death. I don’t know any pacifist who holds either of these extremes to be best interpretation, and neither do I know of any group of pacifists who agree where the line precisely falls. It is, at least in Quakerism, an individual choice (to use a secular description that omits theological concerns). Most, though, agree that supporting efforts that end in violence crosses the line even if one is not engaging in violent acts; being a cook in the Army violates pacifistic norms because one is still an instrument of the Army.
My understanding of the events is that our friend may have initially objected to being any part of any proceedings that might end in homicide (except if acting to avoid that end). Upon reflection brought about by being held in contempt, she may have realized that she is not morally opposed to the criminal justice system generally, even though it might impose the death penalty, but rather is opposed to those actions within the system that move society toward committing homicide. (This position would be consistent with taking a job as an investigator for the defense, a role in which she might be well positioned to exonerate the innocent without having to offer evidence that supports guilt and execution.) As such, it seems like a principled stand to be willing to testify on behalf of the court but not on behalf of the prosecutor. Cooperating with the prosecutor would directly support the prosecution’s goals, yet saying the same things while cooperating with the court might only indirectly enable the prosecutor’s goals.
This is a fine line to be sure, but it is consistent with the idea of not “being a tool of those seeking to execute a fellow human being.”
- I was raised as a Quaker, which might be relevant because it is another “peace church.” Of course, that Quakers and Mennonites both hold pacifism as a core value does not mean we agree at all on what it means to be a pacifist, so this post might be entirely irrelevant. Still, pacifism is an idea most people have seemingly never considered and my musings here might help make the philosophy of pacifism more accessible to others.
I’m morally opposed to the death penalty, and I approve of her choice to go to jail rather than testify if she thinks her testimony would lead to an execution. But I don’t think the law should allow someone to refuse to testify in court based on their religious beliefs. I would like to see the law that allows for the death penalty changed, not a new “religious privilege” against testimony created.
It may be the case that the right thing for the judge to do is to find her in contempt, and the right thing for her to do is to go to jail rather than testify.
Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board … Jon who’s “h” was washed away by the rain … I’m glad you understand our purpose here so well … you’re spot-on correct about how pacifism is understood by Mennonites … they’ll pay their taxes even though some of it is used for warfare, but they will not join or be drafted into military service … be advised my grandparents were excommunicated from the church so my opinions are very bias …
In 17th and 18th Century Europe, there was near constant warfare … obviously pacifism and the refusal to join the military was extremely unpopular with the feudal overlords … come the 19th Century, only the United States allowed us to practice our pacifism without persecution …
For my family, of the “Ukrainian” branch, WWII broke that tenet apart and we joined in droves … just about all my male relatives in that generation is a vet …
This person had every right, religious or otherwise, to refuse to participate in a death penalty case when the defense team first contacted her … but she said “yes” and she should have known this answer could cause her to be responsible … things have gotten weird for her and she wants to bail, too bad, she has to throw the switch on the 'lectric chair …
What this has to do with military service is beyond me …
What’s with this “worldliness” … my whole life listening to my mother rag on the Church about worldliness (“postage stamp” sized head coverings) … when she was a little girl the Mennonites in Western Kansas were much much closer to today’s Amish communities in terms of dress and behavior … [sigh] … “All God’s judgements are righteous and true” … this woman deserves to sit in jail …
The problem may be easier to recognize if the sides are switched – imagine a forensics expert for the prosecution refusing to answer questions from the defense about a report that she prepared that suggests the defendant’s guilt.