4 ms·

How else could it possibly work? The justice system depends on judges being able to compel action. Within the guardrails established by the system (e.g. no self

How else could it possibly work? The justice system depends on judges being able to compel action. Within the guardrails established by the system (e.g. no self-incriminating testimony, if you’re in the US), I don’t have a problem with refusal to e.g. turn over evidence just resulting in detention until you comply. It’s not a prison sentence, since you can get out any time you want.

awesome_dude 7mo ago
> I don’t have a problem with refusal to e.g. turn over evidence just resulting in detention until you comply. It’s not a prison sentence, since you can get out any time you want. It is if you don't have the item(s) or knowledge being asked for.
- Analemma_ 7mo ago
  > Thompson was held in contempt for refusing to answer questions about the location of about 500 missing gold coins You can claim “I forgot” in response to questioning, and the judge will decide on the balance of evidence whether you appear to be telling the truth. Contra the panicky memes about contempt of court, people aren’t indefinitely detained because they forgot something. But that’s clearly not what happened here.
  - FpUser 7mo ago
    >"the balance of evidence " Do not make me laugh. What evidence? Persons can and do forget most obvious things.
    - nullsanity 7mo ago
      [dead]
  - tick_tock_tick 7mo ago
    Dude I've forgotten computer passwords I've used 4-5 days a week for years; one day it was just gone.
  - mikkupikku 7mo ago
    It's entirely conceivable that he stashed the gold, it was subsequently discovered and stolen by somebody else (any of his relatives might have been in a position to do this, if for instance he stashed it in his home and they had reason to suspect he had done so.) Then, not knowing that the gold is gone he admits that he had it and agrees to turn it over, only to then discover that he cannot. What then is he meant to do? The "balance of evidence" may say that he once had it, since he did seem to admit it when he agreed to turn it over, but what then? What evidence is there that he's now lying?
    - vilhelm_s 7mo ago
      The order was not that he had to produce the coins, just that he cooperate in tracking them down. Telling them where he had stashed it would have been fine.
  - awesome_dude 7mo ago
    > the judge will decide on the balance of evidence whether you appear to be telling the truth Hmm, not sure if that's adequate, civil court is usually balance, and that's because it doesn't deprive someone of their liberty. Criminal court is beyond a reasonable doubt, because of the seriousness of the consequences
giancarlostoro 7mo ago
> since you can get out any time you want. If you dont hate whats requested, how do you get out any time you want?
bravoetch 7mo ago
You ask how else could it possibly work. How about charge him with a crime first, then detain him if he's convicted. The idea that you can imprison someone forever without a charge is insane.
- tptacek 7mo ago
  You can't resolve criminal liability without compliance to judicial authority. It's not even a meaningful demand. If you don't trust the judiciary you can't trust any other component of the system!
  - FpUser 7mo ago
    Total BS. You can do anything. We have politicians to create meaningful laws. What we have instead in this case is a fucking faschists.
  - Brian_K_White 7mo ago
    Then you can charge him with the crime of contempt, and allow that charge to be proven or disproven through actual due process. There is no such thing as a valid reason to skip the part where you have to prove guilt. Even for a judge. Frankly especially for a judge. Everyone else has the excuse that they aren't lawyers. What's a judges excuse?
    - tptacek 7mo ago
      You can't prove or disprove anything with someone who refuses to comply with the courts. This is due process.
      - jrflowers 7mo ago
        Exactly. Seeing as there is no presumption of innocence in the US and the burden of proof is the defendant’s, it makes sense that a judge can put anyone in jail indefinitely without proving anything. If he had died in prison it would have been due process because contempt is meant to be so punitive that it acts as a deterrent to any other person that sets foot in a court room from refusing to be compelled into making self-incriminatory statements. Now obviously this entire line of reasoning would be completely nullified if there were examples to the contrary or if any of the things mentioned had been adjudicated before but
cortesoft 7mo ago
Doesn't this give the government the unchecked ability to detain whoever they want indefinitely, then? They could just demand someone turn over evidence that doesn't exist, or that they know the person doesn't know about?
- Analemma_ 7mo ago
  That’s not how any of this works. You still have rights when you’re being detained for contempt, you can claim you’re being held arbitrarily for being asked to turn over evidence that doesn’t exist, and an appeals court will decide if that’s true and release you if so. It’s not a magic incantation to hold anyone indefinitely at random.
  - dwedge 7mo ago
    It seems he pled guilty to missing a hearing and then was held indefinitely on that plea bargain, because the judge wanted him to turn over evidence. I don't know, if this happened as it's reported it seems incredibly close to a magic incantation
- MBCook 7mo ago
  Isn’t that exactly what this article is about? A guy that was released from jail on contempt because it can’t be used indefinitely?
  - bobsmooth 7mo ago
    After a decade in prison without being charged.
    - tptacek 7mo ago
      He was charged, with contempt.
  - bram98 7mo ago
    After a decade.
wesammikhail 7mo ago
The is the most totalitarian bullshit I've ever heard on HN. The fact that you're okay with another human, just because they have a robe, to compel you to do as they ask OR rot away without a conviction is utter madness. Imagine if this was the 1500s and the man in the robe was a priest. Would you be okay with that? and if your answer is some form of distinction without a difference argument, I'd urge you to not even reply.
- jasomill 7mo ago
  Contempt charges do not give judges plenary authority to detain people indefinitely, or even for 10 years.
FpUser 7mo ago
>"How else could it possibly work?" Here is the idea - six month in jail for contempt. > The justice system depends on judges being able to compel action" It does not. The person gets punished and this should be the end of it. Instead they have Machiavellian twist bypassing all standard checks and bounds. Daddy they've hurt my ego.
- nullsanity 7mo ago
  [dead]

awesome_dude 7mo ago

> I don’t have a problem with refusal to e.g. turn over evidence just resulting in detention until you comply. It’s not a prison sentence, since you can get out any time you want. It is if you don't have the item(s) or knowledge being asked for.

Analemma_ 7mo ago
> Thompson was held in contempt for refusing to answer questions about the location of about 500 missing gold coins You can claim “I forgot” in response to questioning, and the judge will decide on the balance of evidence whether you appear to be telling the truth. Contra the panicky memes about contempt of court, people aren’t indefinitely detained because they forgot something. But that’s clearly not what happened here.
- FpUser 7mo ago
  >"the balance of evidence " Do not make me laugh. What evidence? Persons can and do forget most obvious things.
  - nullsanity 7mo ago
    [dead]
- tick_tock_tick 7mo ago
  Dude I've forgotten computer passwords I've used 4-5 days a week for years; one day it was just gone.
- mikkupikku 7mo ago
  It's entirely conceivable that he stashed the gold, it was subsequently discovered and stolen by somebody else (any of his relatives might have been in a position to do this, if for instance he stashed it in his home and they had reason to suspect he had done so.) Then, not knowing that the gold is gone he admits that he had it and agrees to turn it over, only to then discover that he cannot. What then is he meant to do? The "balance of evidence" may say that he once had it, since he did seem to admit it when he agreed to turn it over, but what then? What evidence is there that he's now lying?
  - vilhelm_s 7mo ago
    The order was not that he had to produce the coins, just that he cooperate in tracking them down. Telling them where he had stashed it would have been fine.
- awesome_dude 7mo ago
  > the judge will decide on the balance of evidence whether you appear to be telling the truth Hmm, not sure if that's adequate, civil court is usually balance, and that's because it doesn't deprive someone of their liberty. Criminal court is beyond a reasonable doubt, because of the seriousness of the consequences

giancarlostoro 7mo ago

> since you can get out any time you want. If you dont hate whats requested, how do you get out any time you want?

bravoetch 7mo ago

You ask how else could it possibly work. How about charge him with a crime first, then detain him if he's convicted. The idea that you can imprison someone forever without a charge is insane.

tptacek 7mo ago
You can't resolve criminal liability without compliance to judicial authority. It's not even a meaningful demand. If you don't trust the judiciary you can't trust any other component of the system!
- FpUser 7mo ago
  Total BS. You can do anything. We have politicians to create meaningful laws. What we have instead in this case is a fucking faschists.
- Brian_K_White 7mo ago
  Then you can charge him with the crime of contempt, and allow that charge to be proven or disproven through actual due process. There is no such thing as a valid reason to skip the part where you have to prove guilt. Even for a judge. Frankly especially for a judge. Everyone else has the excuse that they aren't lawyers. What's a judges excuse?
  - tptacek 7mo ago
    You can't prove or disprove anything with someone who refuses to comply with the courts. This is due process.
    - jrflowers 7mo ago
      Exactly. Seeing as there is no presumption of innocence in the US and the burden of proof is the defendant’s, it makes sense that a judge can put anyone in jail indefinitely without proving anything. If he had died in prison it would have been due process because contempt is meant to be so punitive that it acts as a deterrent to any other person that sets foot in a court room from refusing to be compelled into making self-incriminatory statements. Now obviously this entire line of reasoning would be completely nullified if there were examples to the contrary or if any of the things mentioned had been adjudicated before but

cortesoft 7mo ago

Doesn't this give the government the unchecked ability to detain whoever they want indefinitely, then? They could just demand someone turn over evidence that doesn't exist, or that they know the person doesn't know about?

Analemma_ 7mo ago
That’s not how any of this works. You still have rights when you’re being detained for contempt, you can claim you’re being held arbitrarily for being asked to turn over evidence that doesn’t exist, and an appeals court will decide if that’s true and release you if so. It’s not a magic incantation to hold anyone indefinitely at random.
- dwedge 7mo ago
  It seems he pled guilty to missing a hearing and then was held indefinitely on that plea bargain, because the judge wanted him to turn over evidence. I don't know, if this happened as it's reported it seems incredibly close to a magic incantation
MBCook 7mo ago
Isn’t that exactly what this article is about? A guy that was released from jail on contempt because it can’t be used indefinitely?
- bobsmooth 7mo ago
  After a decade in prison without being charged.
  - tptacek 7mo ago
    He was charged, with contempt.
- bram98 7mo ago
  After a decade.

wesammikhail 7mo ago

The is the most totalitarian bullshit I've ever heard on HN. The fact that you're okay with another human, just because they have a robe, to compel you to do as they ask OR rot away without a conviction is utter madness. Imagine if this was the 1500s and the man in the robe was a priest. Would you be okay with that? and if your answer is some form of distinction without a difference argument, I'd urge you to not even reply.

jasomill 7mo ago
Contempt charges do not give judges plenary authority to detain people indefinitely, or even for 10 years.

FpUser 7mo ago

>"How else could it possibly work?" Here is the idea - six month in jail for contempt. > The justice system depends on judges being able to compel action" It does not. The person gets punished and this should be the end of it. Instead they have Machiavellian twist bypassing all standard checks and bounds. Daddy they've hurt my ego.

nullsanity 7mo ago
[dead]