My work is primarily involved with representation of clients in some facet of the Texas parole process. We also get hired to do consultations related to clients going to prison who have never had dealings with that, with the family ALSO being involved (since, again, the families rarely have a clue- for that matter, many attorneys have ZERO idea about prison or parole). I sort of fell into the current niche, parlaying my career with the agencies in question into being one of THE go-to people for TDCJ and parole issues. Many of the larger names in the legal field around the State know my office and reputation. So, yes, at some point, I expect to receive a call... Ordinarily we would say parole is not even remotely viable but if there is a member of the victim's family that is NOT opposed to release, it changes how the vote in five years MIGHT play out...
thanks! I'm one of those who only knows from a few episodes on TV about the corrections department ... and that some facilities will use those white busses we see on the highway every once/while to transfer 'em.
Might someone file a complaint or lawsuit? Maybe. It only takes one *******, but even with the sloppy standing requirements the Court applies on establishment clause cases, it would be hard to even present much of a case. What she did wasn't any kind of official act made on behalf of the State of Texas. She wasn't making a ruling. She wasn't even making a statement from the bench or on the record. She simply handed someone a Bible and said something to her, and of course, nothing was coerced. If someone would have a basis to complain from an establishment clause standpoint, it would be Guyger herself. After all, she was the one who was "exposed" to the Bible and the judge's words. I don't see her complaining. She didn't look too upset about it. In fact, she looked quite comforted by it. The biggest basis to complain would be that her act (if it was done in the presence of and was heard by the jury, and I'm not sure that it was) showed partiality toward the defendant. Well, for that to matter, the prosecution would have to complain. They didn't, and it would be hard to show that her act actually impacted the jury's verdict.
I agree that it should have been an option for the jury, even though I'm glad that they wouldn't have taken it anyway.
As relates to Guyger, you are correct that it is not apt to be raised unless they are throwing everything but the kitchen sink at the appellate court. BUT...now that this has happened, what happens when the Nation of Islam defendant is in front of the Court? It is not just THIS case that has the prospect of having an issue but every case going forward if the judge has any tendency to do this on a regular basis. I don't know the judge and don't keep up with Dallas County cases other than those that involve a client where we have been contacted in some manner. In this day and age, you just never know what forms the basis for an appeal that the 5th Court of Appeals at Dallas or the Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin might grant relief upon. All I harken back to is the events that led to the change in civil commitment proceedings...ALL of those used to be in Montgomery County until the judge on the bench had a video show up from a fundraising event where he spoke very negatively about sex offenders. Recusal filings were then made in EVERY case that followed the video coming to light. The next Session saw the law change and those cases were now to be considered in the County where the underlying sex offenses had occurred. Thus, seemingly innocuous events CAN have rippling repercussions. Time will tell if this was a common event in that Court or whether this was an effort to mitigate protest potential...
It appears that she is already out of Dallas County custody and enroute to the Woodman State Jail Facility in Gatesville. That is one of the two primary intake facilities for female offenders. We should know in a few days whether TDCJ will continue to house her or whether steps will be taken to have her housed in a different State (or perhaps even in the BOP under what amounts to WITSEC guidelines where she won't appear on an internet search and people cannot contact her without knowing the specific addressing nomenclature). Side note...if you EVER call a facility holding a WITSEC client, expect a call from Washington very soon after you hang up. Had one of those as well about 15 years ago...guy gave us a mailing address that did not match what was on the BOP database and I tried to confirm with the facility. DC was calling me not five minutes later wanting to know what my interest was in the inmate...
Even more important was Botham Jean's brother, Brandt's extension of grace and forgiveness. Supernatural stuff. 'I forgive you': Botham Jean's brother, Amber Guyger embrace following witness impact statement
Even if she decided to make an issue of it (which is highly unlikely since Guyger seemed to invite it, if anything), it's still not likely to go anywhere for two reasons. First, it would be very hard to make the case that Judge Kemp was a state actor at the time because this wasn't part of the case. It wasn't part of a ruling or order of any kind and didn't happen as part of the proceeding, so any kind of First Amendment/separation of church and state issue likely isn't going anywhere. Second, for Guyger to make it part of her appeal without raising the First Amendment angle, she'd have to show that she was harmed in the case. Well, since both the guilty verdict and sentencing had already been handed down, she'd have a pretty hard time showing harm. It depends on how she handles the Nation of Islam defendants. She has been on the bench since 2014, so I'm sure she has presided over cases with Muslim and certainly plenty of non-Christian defendants. Being a professed Christian doesn't mean that person can't be impartial toward and Islamic defendant just like being a professed Muslim doesn't mean one can't be impartial toward a Christian defendant. I doubt that she does this on every case. If she did, she'd have a reputation for it. I think she saw this is as a unique matter. The Fifth Court of Appeals just got taken over by a bunch of woke liberals. Well, they don't even believe in the supremacy of the written law, so who the hell knows what they will do on any case? However, I doubt they'd do anything just because of the political blow back they'd take for crapping on a black Democratic judge for doing something that probably has 95 percent support by the public. And the Court of Criminal Appeals is still run by Republicans. They won't give a flip. Oh mb, did you really make that comparison? Judge Kemp handed one defendant a Bible after she was sentenced. During the actual trial and in all other dealings she has had with the public, she was nothing but fair, impartial, and professional. Seiler (who was stupidly appointed by our jackass, Aggie governor-for-life) ran a first-rate **** show. There was nothing innocuous about his conduct. He was very clearly partial based on his public comments and flagrantly took that partiality into the courtroom, and he was a smack-talking ******* in the courtroom (and yes, there is an anti-******* rule in the Code of Judicial Conduct). He berated (for BS reasons) defense counsels in the presence of the jury. He even instructed one counsel that she could only file objections in writing. Can you imagine? If something can clearly be anticipated, of course, one should file objections in writing, but crap happens in courtrooms all the time that needs to be verbally objected to. If one side can't do that, that's an enormous detriment on that party. And he was a friggin' crook. The dude illegally took juror information from the courthouse and used it to send campaign mailers. He's lucky he's not in the slammer. I'm just not seeing a lot of similarities between Seiler and Kemp.
What the victim's brother did is truly inspiring. Forgiveness is an easy concept intellectually, but it is much harder to stand fast to when the chips are down. I also have no problem with what the judge did. I wouldn't hold it out as model judicial conduct, and I would be troubled if a judge made a habit of giving bibles to all convicted felons before sending them to prison. But a one-off occurrence in the heat of a very atypical moment is fine. I do find it ironic that many of you seem to think that forgiveness is a uniquely Christian act. In truth, it is a fundamental humanistic concept that is central to many moral codes, religious and non-religious alike. Yes, in this case, both the brother and the judge found forgiveness through the teachings of Jesus of Lazarus, whom many believe was the son of god. But whether you believe that or just that Jesus was a highly pious man with excellent leadership skills, it is a matter of historical fact that he spoke and preached extensively about the Jewish principles of forgiveness laid out many centuries earlier by Maimonides. To be clear, this is not meant to be an attack on Christianity. What the brother did was awesome, and was motivated by his belief in Jesus. That's great. But it is no more great than when a Jew or a Hindu or a Muslim or an atheist or anyone else manages to find forgiveness in his or her heart in difficult times. Christianity is just one of many routes that can lead to that place of peace.
I don't think anyone assumes that. Everyone can and should forgive others even when it's difficult. Furthermore, I don't think it's any easier for a Christian to forgive than anyone else. What we saw in court was specifically Christian, because Christians were doing it in accordance with Christian theology. That's all. If a Jewish family member had forgiven a murderer (and undoubtedly many have done so), it would have just as moving and just as commendable. I've heard of the families of Holocaust victims forgiving the SS officers who put their loved ones to death. That can't be easy.
To be fair, he did chill out at Lazarus's house, so at times he could have been called "Jesus of Lazarus."
I don't think you assume that. But others clearly do. For example: While ShAArk92 doesn't explicitly say so, it seems clear to me that his "only one way" refers to the aforementioned "Jesus of Lazarus" (d'oh!!). It seems equally clear to me that he is wrong. Following the teachings of Jesus is one of many ways a person can be led to do good in the world.
I'll let Shark clarify his own comments, and perhaps he does think that only Christians can forgive, but I'd be surprised. That's clearly not true. Everybody can forgive. That doesn't mean that anyone can forgive easily. I think that the normal human urge is to hate those who commit evil and deadly acts against a loved one. I have no doubt that Jean struggled with that urge and had to overcome it.
Since I was invited ... Humans have the capacity to forgive, but it's not in our nature We tend to seek revenge for being wronged. We are selfish by nature. Who has ever heard of a 2 year old needing instruction/correction to be selfish? Are there not plenty of adult examples of this as well? The Only Way (John 14:6) to have that peace which passes understanding (Phillipians 4:6) is to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ ... of Nazareth, not Lazarus. Lazarus was a man Jesus resurrected from the dead by his vocal command. That heart of forgiveness only comes from the power of The Holy Spirit. I never said The Only Way was the exclusive way to do good ... but since you misattribute what I said, @NJlonghorn ... He's really the root of anything good. (James 1:17) non-Christians can "do good" but "doing good" isn't my reference. Brandt's reborn SPIRIT reveals the "fruit of The Spirit" (Galatians 5:25-26) as a believer (and confessor) of Jesus Christ and His Gospel message (Romans 10:9-10), based solely upon Jesus ... "distributed" by The Church whom He is soon to receive. Brandt Jean TESTIFIES (literally in the witness stand, how cool is THAT?) AND THEREFORE all the people who were watching to burn the cop/whitey/whatever ... got to see the power of Christ in Brandt. ... for it is no longer Brandt who lives, he has been crucified with Christ, but it is Christ who lives in Brandt. The life Brandt now leads in the flesh he does so by FAITH in the Son of God, who loved Brandt, and gave Himself up for Brandt. (Galatians 2:20 personified) Brandt isn't the only one who can receive this. It's freely offered to all as opposed to the wages of sin (selfishness) being death ... the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus (Romans 6:23 rephrased) Good works isn't the goal, it's the result. Surrender of self and embracing Jesus (Galatians 2:20 again) ... THAT is what matters most. Thanks for asking.
Much admiration Shark. Wish I could process that strongly my conviction. I fear my reaction in those circumstance would be more toward retribution.
@ShAArk92 Based on the reaction of @Phil Elliott and @nashhorn, I’ll have to concede that what you are saying must make sense to and resonate with some people. Maybe even lots of people. As to me, your explanation makes no more sense and is no more satisfactory than what I previously thought you were saying. I’ll focus on two issues. First, you clarify that accepting Jesus is not the only way to do good, but it is the only way “to have that peace which passes understanding”. So do you believe that the inner peace that Christians find is somehow more genuine or complete than the inner peace that Ghandi found? What about the Jews who saw fit to forgive the Nazis, as @Mr. Deez mentioned before? And was there no path to inner peace before Christ? Next, you say that Jesus is really the root of anything good. So are you saying that when I do something good, it is because of Christ? What about when Maimonides did good? Was that because of Christ? I’ve tried not to make this post sound snarky. I’m aiming for skeptical, but it’s really hard to be skeptical on the internet without sounding snarky. Please accept my apologies in advance.
NJlonghorn, maybe the question is what religion or philosophy prioritizes foregiveness? Pagan religions don't. Classical Greek philosophy up to Modern and Premodern Philosophy doesn't. Islam doesn't. Buddhism and Hinduism do teach passivity but actually forgiving those who wrong you? Maybe but doesn't seem like a priority. Judaism maybe more so, but meeting the requirements of the Law and holding others to it is more in the forefront. Christianity has a foundation built on forgiveness. Jesus paid the penalty so others could be forgiven. Then those who receive forgiveness of sin through Jesus are commanded to forgive others when those others wrong them. Does that mean forgiveness only happens from Christians? No. But Christianity and the character of life it demands is all about forgiveness. People who aren't Christian forgive. I can't say when that happens that Christianity gets credit for it. But I do think that forgiveness is attractive because the God of the Bible created us in His image and God forgives.
Fair point -- forgiveness does seem to be more of a predominant focus for Christianity that it is for other religions. But I think it is important to distinguish between the two sides of forgiveness. Christianity certainly prioritizes the "receiving forgiveness" side more than any other religion I know of. In fact, I'm not aware of any other religion that puts much if any emphasis on the concept that your sins can be forgiven by god (or in this case god's son) merely because you believe in and accept him. In particular, Judaism demands much more from someone seeking forgiveness. This is the central theme of the holiest holiday of the year, Yom Kippur (which happens to start tomorrow evening). But I don't think Christianity prioritizes the "giving forgiveness" side of things any more than some other religions. Two that I am familiar with -- Judaism and Hinduism -- consider giving forgiveness to be centrally important. I just looked up what Buddhism says about giving forgiveness, and it is interesting. They say if A forgives B's sin, that does not erase B's bad karma points. But if A fails to forgive B's sin and harbors negative feelings, then A accumulates bad karma points himself. In other words, failure to forgive another's sin is itself a sin. I don't know about Islam and I find their texts/explanations very hard to read and understand. But this first Google hit for "Muslim forgiveness" seems to think it is a pretty big deal in Islam.
Christians are commanded to forgive others in multiple places with the idea that how can a person be forgiven if he/she refuses to forgive others. It is a huge deal both ways. I wonder when forgiveness became important in Judaism and Hinduism. Because in the Jewish Bible there is some talk of loving others, but the Law is very specific about punishment and restitution for a wrongdoer. That isn't forgiveness. That is payment. Either to God in the form of a sacrifice or to the person harmed. Forgiveness is the opposite, not receiving any restitution for a wrong done to you. Hinduism fundamentally rejects the idea that there is sin. Pain, sin, joy, good is all an illusion. The only way to nirvana is to transcend the lie of material, individual reality. There really is no you to sin or forgive. In Islam, Muslims forgive each other. But there is no forgiveness for the dhimmi or infidel.
Well Muslims forgive each other unless one is gay or refuses to be forced into a marriage or one speaks out against muslim cruelty or one leaves islam for another religion
NJ, Christianity is pretty clear on forgiving others. "Then Peter came to Him and said, 'Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven times?' Jesus said to him, 'I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven.'" Matthew 18:21-22. That's a direct order from Christ to the Apostle Peter to forgive others. And most people assume that seventy times seven is metaphorical, not literal. If your brother sins against you 491 times, you don't get to refuse to forgive him. Perhaps even more directly, Jesus said this. "For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." Matthew 6:14-15. I'm not sure how much more Jesus could have prioritized forgiving others. He makes it quite clear that God's forgiveness for sin is conditional on our forgiveness of others. If someone sins against us and we refuse to forgive that person, God will not forgive us for our own sins. If God doesn't forgive our sins, well, whether we're Jews or Christians, we know what happens, and it's not pretty. I'm not going to claim that Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism don't prioritize forgiveness or that they prioritize it less. I don't know nearly enough about either one to make that kind of a judgment. However, as a matter of logic, I don't see how they could prioritize it more than Christianity does, and I don't see what Christianity could do to prioritize it more than it does.
For those so interested, Guyger arrived and was quickly moved from the intake process to a true double-door'ed protective custody at Mountain View. She is in the same building housing Selena's killer as well as the Air Force Cadet (who had unsuccessfully sued for a release to general population).
I apologize for my delayed response ... been in a multi day event which inhibited my opportunity/ability to respond. I'm only sharing what I have experienced as directly stated from God's Word, The Holy Bible ... as cited. I don't know Ghandi. What little I know of him what has been said, but I don't have a personal relationship with this man who died and remains in that condition today. Attempts to equate Ghandi with Jesus will be disappointing. The Jews have held a unique relationship with God (The Father) for a very long time. I am not IN that circle of people who refuse to recognize God The Son IS the Messiah whom they have anticipated, but missed. The same "Lord of All" who provided for their return as prophesied in the Testament of The Bible which they all memorize (an incredible feat, btw ... what other group of people with more than a few hundred thousand memorize a text as broad and deep as the Old Testament?) Therefore, my answer to that great question is ... I DON'T KNOW specifically, but that I don't know doesn't invalidate the need to have Jesus Christ as one's PERSONAL Lord and Savior ... and the only person who is worthy and able. But yes ... I am stating that having "the peace which passes understanding" is only receivable by surrendering self "crucify the flesh" and receiving Jesus Christ's free gift of eternal life ... becoming an heir with Him (Romans 8:17, Eph 3:6) I'm saying that there is good only because of Jesus. Man IS made in God's image and that is a "type and shadow" sufficient to "stumble" into the "end zone" of the cloudy mirror of Christ to occasionally, in spite of ourselves, do good (1 Cor 13:12) he hee .... pardon me. I remembered Trump's declaration of a scripture in "one Corinthians" (vice "First Corinthians") during the campaign ... and yet there are things happening through God's use of Trump only God could do. More to come on that ... but back to point. @Phil Elliott ... thank you sir. By the grace of Jesus Christ. Hope you are well. @nashhorn ... indeed. I'd like to think I could recognize who I am in that moment and respond similarly ... this is why the sanctification process. Saved in an "instant," sanctified over a lifetime of denying one's self, taking up his cross daily, and following Jesus (Luke 9:23 rephrased) Ah ... islam. The greatest deceit ever to have been perpetrated. It's very very close to The Truth ... but beyond the ghastly (to our current sensibilities in the Western World) acts taken to eradicate the infidel ... it's absolute denial, not just failure to recognize, of Jesus Christ as God The Son is it's "kryptonite." They claim a heritage similar to the Jews back to Abraham. they have a law which mirrors many corrective acts to bad behaviors (we all know the difference between right and wrong). search for the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock ... 8 (IIRC) sided building on Mount Moriah, and understand how islam views Jesus. What does one, personally/individually do "with" Jesus? That is the only relevant question, ultimately. Is He nothing more than another Ghandi?
Judge Kemp explains the hug. Good for her. And let's remember. This isn't some crazy Right wing religious freak. This is a outspoken liberal judge who was in the right place at the right time and did the right thing. Good for her.
