by Rvaughn » Sat Mar 18, 2017 10:39 am
My first thought is that the area of accommodation is a problem where both sides have difficulty with it when it is against their beliefs and favor it when it agrees with them. I think making all efforts toward accommodation is the best route (or, as RFRA puts it, use the least restrictive means possible).
I understand your point, that prosecutorial discretion may chose the penalty that a person is tried for. But normally that would be a legal decision based on the facts of the case. Another difference I see in the cases is that Kimberly Davis was caught by a change in law. IIRC, she was elected county clerk before the Supreme Court ruling. Accommodation at least could have let her serve out her term without going after her head. On the other hand, Aramis Ayala was elected knowing the laws of Florida and that she would not support/enforce capital punishment. Assuming she was elected without revealing this fact (which I don't know for certain) then to that degree she defrauded the electorate. (So I'm not against accommodating Ayala, but think she should have been up front about her position -- again, assuming she was not.)