3 ms·
Lots of other ways to handle it though. They could: - Have a “lose your turn” approach (toss your case to the bottom of the pile and keep moving the others th
by makecheck 10y ago
Lots of other ways to handle it though. They could:
- Have a “lose your turn” approach (toss your case to the bottom of the pile and keep moving the others through, until you cool down).
- Ignore you and restate the question/statement that preceded the contempt of court. If it persists, then escalate.
- Give a fine; $50 ought to dissuade most people from continuing to cause a problem.
In fact, they could do just about anything before sending someone to jail.
And heck, there are times in my career I wish I could have put someone in a box for being too disruptive during a meeting or something. Yet we don’t do that, in part because we’re supposed to be civilized. Maybe the “point” of contempt charges is to maintain order but it really just makes the court look like a spoiled child that goes way overboard when challenged.
- tptacek 10y agoHow does sending a case to the bottom of the pile not also penalize the adversary of the person disrupting the court?
- dllthomas 10y agoIn fact, delay is often in the interest of one or the other party.
- rayiner 10y agoYou're arguing against a straw man. There is a lot that happens before someone gets held in contempt, and even then the usual solution is a fine ("$1,000 for every day you refuse to comply with the order") not jail time. But the threat of criminal contempt is absolutely necessary. Judges have to be able to do things like get CEOs of multi-billion dollar companies to hand over documents or testify about things that could cost their companies a lot of money. They have to order construction halted on a multi-billion theme park to protect endangered frogs. Fines aren't going to get that done. The fear of being sent to jail will. As a practical matter it almost never comes to that. And even when it does, it's subject to review like any other charge.