4 ms·

contempt of court is a crime

by sevenf0ur 7y ago

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
leggomylibro 7y ago
And has a jury convicted her of that crime? No.
- Karunamon 7y ago
  I think contempt is unique in that it is summarily imposed by a judge for failing to follow a lawful order, correct?
  - leggomylibro 7y ago
    I would believe that there are legal precedents for unilaterally detaining someone for an indefinite period of time. But I also believe that it is a clear violation of the 6th and 8th amendments to indefinitely detain someone without a trial. These sorts of extreme and unusual actions erode the credibility of the entire judicial system in the eyes of the public.
    - smsm42 7y ago
      Wouldn't the situation where you could just refuse any judicial order and then be set free erode the credibility of the entire judicial system in the eyes of the public? The point of contempt charge is to give teeth to judicial orders, otherwise it's just some ramblings of some random person sitting behind a desk in some fancy building, and there's no reason why anybody should listen to them. The credibility of the system, in part, rests in its ability to enforce judicial decisions.
      - leggomylibro 7y ago
        No, I don't believe so; the whole point of a jury is to verify that a single authority figure's decision to imprison someone is not invalid. If a judge wants someone imprisoned for a valid legal reason, they should be able to get a jury of that person's peers to agree. That's what prevents our judiciary from becoming arbitrary tool of oppression.
        smsm42 7y ago
        > the whole point of a jury is to verify that a single authority figure's decision to imprison someone is not invalid. Juries never decided questions of authority and validity of judicial decisions. That's just not how juries work in common law. > If a judge wants someone imprisoned for a valid legal reason, they should be able to get a jury of that person's peers to agree. That may be your ideal picture, but again that's not how common law system works, and also not how it can work - if somebody would just refuse to comply with judicial orders, and you'd require a new jury trial each time one needs to be compelled to appear in hearing, answer a question, comply with a subpoena, etc. then you won't be able to enforce any decision and any judicial proceedings would be impossible as it would produce a fractal tree of sub-proceedings for every action, and any hostile actor would be able to bog down any proceedings by just refusing to comply with every judicial action. In actuality, there are enforcement actions in common law systems that can be performed without a jury trial. Jury trial is only necessary for conviction of a crime.
        leggomylibro 7y ago
        Fair enough, but I still believe that imprisonment absent a conviction or pretrial flight risk should not be allowed. I hope that in the future, we will see these sorts of situations like we see debtor's prisons today. Another abhorrent example which shows where this leads: journalists can be unilaterally detained for not giving up their sources. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/politics/reporter-jailed-after-refusing-to-name-source.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/politics/reporter-jailed-...

contempt of court is a crime

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

leggomylibro 7y ago

And has a jury convicted her of that crime? No.

Karunamon 7y ago
I think contempt is unique in that it is summarily imposed by a judge for failing to follow a lawful order, correct?
- leggomylibro 7y ago
  I would believe that there are legal precedents for unilaterally detaining someone for an indefinite period of time. But I also believe that it is a clear violation of the 6th and 8th amendments to indefinitely detain someone without a trial. These sorts of extreme and unusual actions erode the credibility of the entire judicial system in the eyes of the public.
  - smsm42 7y ago
    Wouldn't the situation where you could just refuse any judicial order and then be set free erode the credibility of the entire judicial system in the eyes of the public? The point of contempt charge is to give teeth to judicial orders, otherwise it's just some ramblings of some random person sitting behind a desk in some fancy building, and there's no reason why anybody should listen to them. The credibility of the system, in part, rests in its ability to enforce judicial decisions.
    - leggomylibro 7y ago
      No, I don't believe so; the whole point of a jury is to verify that a single authority figure's decision to imprison someone is not invalid. If a judge wants someone imprisoned for a valid legal reason, they should be able to get a jury of that person's peers to agree. That's what prevents our judiciary from becoming arbitrary tool of oppression.
      - smsm42 7y ago
        > the whole point of a jury is to verify that a single authority figure's decision to imprison someone is not invalid. Juries never decided questions of authority and validity of judicial decisions. That's just not how juries work in common law. > If a judge wants someone imprisoned for a valid legal reason, they should be able to get a jury of that person's peers to agree. That may be your ideal picture, but again that's not how common law system works, and also not how it can work - if somebody would just refuse to comply with judicial orders, and you'd require a new jury trial each time one needs to be compelled to appear in hearing, answer a question, comply with a subpoena, etc. then you won't be able to enforce any decision and any judicial proceedings would be impossible as it would produce a fractal tree of sub-proceedings for every action, and any hostile actor would be able to bog down any proceedings by just refusing to comply with every judicial action. In actuality, there are enforcement actions in common law systems that can be performed without a jury trial. Jury trial is only necessary for conviction of a crime.
        leggomylibro 7y ago
        Fair enough, but I still believe that imprisonment absent a conviction or pretrial flight risk should not be allowed. I hope that in the future, we will see these sorts of situations like we see debtor's prisons today. Another abhorrent example which shows where this leads: journalists can be unilaterally detained for not giving up their sources. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/politics/reporter-jailed-after-refusing-to-name-source.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/politics/reporter-jailed-...