24 ms·

The judge’s distinction between punitive and coercive is important. Contempt of court is closer to police use of force than to criminal punishment. Faced with a

The judge’s distinction between punitive and coercive is important. Contempt of court is closer to police use of force than to criminal punishment. Faced with a hostile suspect, cops can do some nasty stuff. Electric shocks, beating with sticks, painful chemicals. But suppose they’re ordering you to stand up, and you’re deaf or paralyzed. The baton keeps landing and you keep not doing what they ask. Resisting arrest is a punishable crime! But they can’t just beat you to death on the side of the road for it. They’d have to actually get a conviction, and even then, beating isn’t a sentencing option. Contempt of court is the nightstick. Obstruction of justice is the resisting arrest charge. That may be on the table for her. But you can’t just keep holding someone in contempt until they do the thing they’ll never do, or once you no longer need it. She’s not asking for special treatment, that is just how contempt works. (Not a lawyer).

baryphonic 7y ago
I'm not sure I follow this analogy. I'm also not sure it's a very reasonable analogy in the first place. Seems a bit non sequitur.
- closeparen 7y ago
  Contempt is not society’s punishment for anything. It’s a tool the judge can use to extract your cooperation with a specific demand. Not as revenge.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - baryphonic 7y ago
    Though there is common law contempt, in the US it has been codified in statutory law[1]. The text of the law states that it is indeed a punishment for disobedience with the court. In general, "revenge" is not the aim of any administration of justice; however, punishment is a tool, for better or worse, that is used in an attempt to achieve justice. Punishment is also the type of remedy that the state can do well. The maxim about "have hammer; see problem nails" applies to the state as well. Keep in mind that the statute, enacted by Congress, explicitly allows the exact punishment Manning herself received. While holding her beyond the grand jury proceedings was considered moot, the fines themselves survived, as fines are wont to do. [1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/401 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/401
    - closeparen 7y ago
      You're right, there is such a thing as criminal contempt, which can be used punitively. But it is a crime for which you have to be charged and convicted. Chelsea Manning's contempt is the civil variety, which must have a coercive purpose.

baryphonic 7y ago

I'm not sure I follow this analogy. I'm also not sure it's a very reasonable analogy in the first place. Seems a bit non sequitur.

closeparen 7y ago
Contempt is not society’s punishment for anything. It’s a tool the judge can use to extract your cooperation with a specific demand. Not as revenge.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- baryphonic 7y ago
  Though there is common law contempt, in the US it has been codified in statutory law[1]. The text of the law states that it is indeed a punishment for disobedience with the court. In general, "revenge" is not the aim of any administration of justice; however, punishment is a tool, for better or worse, that is used in an attempt to achieve justice. Punishment is also the type of remedy that the state can do well. The maxim about "have hammer; see problem nails" applies to the state as well. Keep in mind that the statute, enacted by Congress, explicitly allows the exact punishment Manning herself received. While holding her beyond the grand jury proceedings was considered moot, the fines themselves survived, as fines are wont to do. [1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/401 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/401
  - closeparen 7y ago
    You're right, there is such a thing as criminal contempt, which can be used punitively. But it is a crime for which you have to be charged and convicted. Chelsea Manning's contempt is the civil variety, which must have a coercive purpose.