*This isn’t a same-sex marriage debate, or a debate over religious exemptions for public employees.
Whatever you may think of Kim Davis, there can be no dispute that she is currently in jail for actions that were nonviolent. There can also be little dispute that America is a country quick to incarcerate people - in fact, doesn’t the United States have the most people behind bars of any country in the world; even more than China? (Someone correct me if I’m wrong.)
The strange contradiction is that many of the people who are glad that Davis is in jail are also probably those who are quick to point out America’s prison-overcrowding issue and condemn America’s eagerness to throw people in jail, including those in prison for nonviolent reasons.
So, how do you think this situation should be addressed? If America is too eager to throw people in prison, and if the U.S. prison population is too large, and if Davis’ actions as county clerk regarding marriage licenses were nonviolent, then by this standard, should Davis have been incarcerated or not?
When a government official says, “I will not obey the law,” that’s a lot more justification for imprisonment (for a short term, as contempt incarceration usually is) than, say, a kid stealing a bicycle.
As a judge once said to me, “When the police break the law, there is no law.” Fighting government corruption is every bit as important as fighting other forms of crime.
The good part about contempt citations is that they’re usually strategic. One clerk in jail sends a powerful message to the thousands of others who may have been toying with the idea of breaking the law. No, we can’t put you all in jail, but we can put you in jail (pointing to someone who made himself/herself prominent.)
The problem, in my opinion, is the idiotic Drug War and mandatory minimums. We’re not going to solve this by alternative sentencing for the vanishingly rare defiant elected official.
Additionally, she is already not complying with the court’s orders. Since she wouldn’t perform her duties as directed by the court, it’s unlikely that less severe punishments would be followed. If any other non-violent offender caused the court that kind of problem, I’d expect them to move to incarceration.
Davis is free to leave jail anytime she wants to. She just has to comply with the District Court’s order. Davis is the one who holds the keys to her jail cell. So, I don’t see how it’s in any way related to overall US imprisonment rates.
[QUOTE=Velocity]
The strange contradiction is that many of the people who are glad that Davis is in jail are also probably those who are quick to point out America’s prison-overcrowding issue and condemn America’s eagerness to throw people in jail, including those in prison for nonviolent reasons.
[/QUOTE]
Yay, false equivalence for distinct issues! There’s no contradiction.
Additionally, the power to hold someone in custody based on contempt of court is an important judicial power. If individuals can simply disregard court orders without fear of consequences (especially where someone–like Kim Davis–is likely not going to be affected by monetary fines), then courts might as well close shop.
If Davis were to resign her position at the moment (speaking of which, is she *allowed *to resign at this point?), then would she be freed from jail, or does she have to actually issue some same-sex marriage licenses in order to get out of jail?
Up to the judge, but if she resigns I would think she would be almost immediately sprung. Once she resigns, she can’t issue marriage licences, and they won’t keep her in prison for failing to do something which she can’t do. If she resigns the order directing her to issue the licences will be vacated and, with no subsisting order, there’s no continuing contempt.
The court order is directed at “Kim Davis, in her official capacity as Rowan County Clerk” (see last page of the pdf). If she resigns, the order would no longer apply to her.
ETA: Thanks to BrightNShiny for the link to the original order.
Plus, many people complain about jail for victimless crimes, like drug use. Kim Davis has victims. Probably more so than someone thrown into jail for contempt for mouthing off at a judge.
The OP’s premise has been thoroughly dealt with already, but:
The distinction is a modern invention that is hardly universal. City and county facilities also experience overcrowding, and they are part of incarceration problem. This says little about the OP’s understanding of the issue and more about others’ understanding of how language works.
I find this OP to be confused. Punishment of convicted criminals for past acts and contempt jailings to prevent future illegal acts are completely different, no? (Ms. Davis has promised to break the law if released.)
If OP wants to discuss the high rate of incarceration in the U.S. focussing on a contempt arrestee seems odd. I don’t have a cite but think that fewer than 0.01% of incarcerations are of this type.
Ms. Davis should consider herself fortunate not to live in a country run on Judeo-Christian principles:
[QUOTE=The Fifth Holy Book of Moses, Chapter 17]
And thou shalt come unto the … judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment:
And thou shalt do according to … all that they inform thee:
According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken …unto the judge, even that man shall die …
LOL. What an insane solution - put the person in jail/prison/behind bars.
You suspend the person from their job - quietly resolving the problem (the employee reconsiders, you decide to reassign the employee, you sack them) - and the world goes on.
Courts usually have no* direct power to dismiss, remove, demote or otherwise discipline a person employed by another body. They only have the power to compel them to undertake an action by incarceration (or monetary penalties).
I really don’t want to live in a place where a Court can decide who gets what position based on nothing but whims.
*Obviously this does not embrace situations where these issues are properly a fact in issue before a Court.