3 ms·
> Not sure what the man's crime is here. He didn't commit a crime. He is being held in jail for contempt of court. This is how the system works. This is no dif
by libertymcateer 10y ago
> Not sure what the man's crime is here.
He didn't commit a crime. He is being held in jail for contempt of court. This is how the system works. This is no different than if a judge demanded that you turn over any other form of evidence - it should not be so shocking that you can be held in contempt for refusing to obey a court order.
It is bad, however, that he is being let to rot indefinitely. That is the problem here - not that he was jailed for contempt in the first place.
- int_19h 10y agoI would dare say that the really bad part is that there's no way to know for sure if he can even comply with that order. As I understand, he claims that he has forgotten the password. Obviously, it's a convenient excuse, but it's not something utterly improbable. What if he actually did forget the password? Why is the word of the judge alone sufficient to assume otherwise? There seems to be an obvious lack of checks here.
- sjy 10y ago> Why is the word of the judge alone sufficient to assume otherwise? There seems to be an obvious lack of checks here. Because the judge's finding is based on evidence – see my other comment[1]. The judicial power to make findings of fact is checked by the appeal process, which is now underway. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13633968 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13633968
- naasking 10y ago> He didn't commit a crime. He is being held in jail for contempt of court. The problem is that contempt isn't classified as a crime and so it doesn't have a fixed term. There are moral hazards with having fixed terms like this, but the moral hazards of not having them, like this case, seem worse.