Contempt of Court

[JohnStOnge]

[youtube][/youtube]

That's kind of funny. But it has always bothered me that judges are allowed to just unilaterally throw people in jail for contempt of Court. No trial, no due process no nothing. If a judge says you're in contempt of court you go to jail.

I don't think they should have that power. I think they should have the power to charge you with contempt of court. But then you should have a right to a trial by jury to determine whether or not you are guilty.

It's all part of what I think is a larger problem: We have made judges into little tin dictators. They have way too much power. Even the thing about wearing black robes like we're in the middle ages or something. They shouldn't be treated like they're anything special. They are no more deserving of respect than anybody else is.

Even the thing I saw in association with the Casey Anthony trial where the judge threw somebody in jail for shooting the bird at somebody. This stuff shouldn't be happening. Judges should be brought back down to earth and made to realize that they are not little royaly figures. They are just people doing a job and filling a role.

[citdog]

I wonder what she has on under that robe? The defendant sounds white trashy hot.

[CID1990]

The power of criminal court judges has actually declined over the years. They have many more constraints on procedure than they used to, and are bound by lots of guidelines, including sentencing guidelines.

I think that the premise behind a judge's authority to have someone held in contempt hinges largely on the public interest in our courts given defendants a fair shake. It isn't perfect, but if a judge did not have the power to unilaterally throw someone in the klink for courtroom outbursts, then those outbursts would eventually become a defense strategy.

Rather than strip a judge's power to hold courtroom observers and participants to a standard of decorum that helps ensure a fair proceeding, I would instead support a system by which we could hold judges who ABUSE that authority accountable.

[danefan]

Judges are not wholly without constraint on contempt of court charges.

You can always appeal to have that contempt charge overturned.

[JohnStOnge]

Judges are not wholly without constraint on contempt of court charges.

You can always appeal to have that contempt charge overturned.

Don't know if that helps anything. By the time the process even really got started the time in jail would be over or close to it.

I just don't like the whole thing with judges where people have to show all kinds of respect for them as though they're some kind of little demigods. In this era we shouldn't have stuff like ceremonial black robes on public officials. And stuff like everybody standing up when they enter the room. The whole thing, I think, makes it reasonable to think these people are likely to get on a power trip and think of themselves as special.

They should be dressed in business attire. There shouldn't be all this pomp and ceremony surrounding them. They shouldn't be able to throw people in jail for stuff like shooting the bird at someone else in the courtroom. In general, all the way up to the Supreme Court level, they should be taken down several pegs so the atmosphere is one in which they are just citizens filling a certain role; no more entitled to respect than anyone else. No aura of "superiority."

[JoltinJoe]

That dismissive wave of the hand as the judge says "go now" speaks volumes about the judge's character.

[youngterrier]

you whine too much

[JohnStOnge]

you whine too much

Call it whining if you wish. But to me this whole thing of creating an aura such that government officials are our "bosses" is totally inconsistent with the concept of government by, for, and of the People. It's a cliche to say they work for us but it's true. And that's the attitude that should govern the way they conduct themselves. They are supposed to be public servants. The public is the boss, not them. That's the way it should be.

Instead, I think, they tend to think of themselves as bosses of the public. I think they tend to kind of get drunk with power. They throw their weight around.

And we faciliate it by doing things like lete them dress in silly black robes in order to set themselves apart from everybody else. Like, as I said, it's the middle ages or something and they're displaying their badges of royalty.

It's not just judges. Like I've written before that I don't like the way we have pomp and ceremony surrounding the President or that 'respect the office" stuff. All that contributes, I think, to people in positions of power getting the "big head." To me a lot of attention ought to be paid to making sure that they are constantly reminded that they are just one of the People and that they just happen to be filling a certain role at the time.

[BlueHen86]

you whine too much

Call it whining if you wish. But to me this whole thing of creating an aura such that government officials are our "bosses" is totally inconsistent with the concept of government by, for, and of the People. It's a cliche to say they work for us but it's true. And that's the attitude that should govern the way they conduct themselves. They are supposed to be public servants. The public is the boss, not them. That's the way it should be.

Instead, I think, they tend to think of themselves as bosses of the public. I think they tend to kind of get drunk with power. They throw their weight around.

And we faciliate it by doing things like lete them dress in silly black robes in order to set themselves apart from everybody else. Like, as I said, it's the middle ages or something and they're displaying their badges of royalty.

It's not just judges. Like I've written before that I don't like the way we have pomp and ceremony surrounding the President or that 'respect the office" stuff. All that contributes, I think, to people in positions of power getting the "big head." To me a lot of attention ought to be paid to making sure that they are constantly reminded that they are just one of the People and that they just happen to be filling a certain role at the time.

I agree, you whine too much. If it bothers you that much, stay out of court.

I find it amusing that you want to be treated as an equal to the President or a judge, yet you argue against egalitarianism. Seems to me that you don't think anyone should ever be treated better than you, but you are okay with being treated better than others.

[CID1990]

Again, contempt rules are not meant to elevate or exalt judges. They are meant to preserve decorum in a courtroom where a defendant's freedom or even life may be at stake. The minute you take away a judge's ability to throw an a$$hole protester or defendant or plaintiff's family member in the klink, court proceedings will look like the British House of Commons.

If a judge abuses his authority in this respect, then have a system by which he or she can be censured or even removed from the bench. Don't get rid of the authority.

[JohnStOnge]

I agree, you whine too much. If it bothers you that much, stay out of court.

I find it amusing that you want to be treated as an equal to the President or a judge, yet you argue against egalitarianism. Seems to me that you don't think anyone should ever be treated better than you, but you are okay with being treated better than others.

It's not just court. It's how we treat public officials in general.

And the egalitarianism I'm talking about is not the same thing. What I am talking about when I reference the egalitarian philosophy is the idea that all groups have equal distributions of abilities, that all cultures are equally effective, that all sexual orientation is equally "normal," etc.

Like for instance: Assuming that something is "wrong" if a disproportionately high number of engieers are Asian or a disproportionately low number of engineers is Black. Assuming that if everything was "fair" that wouldn't be the case. That's the kind of egalitarianism I'm talking about.

What I'm saying here is that we should not be giving a person extra respect just because they hold a certain position in government. They are supposed to be public servants. If they as individuals act in a way that earns respect then, fine, respect them. But don't require that people give them extra respect just because they hold a certain title and are wearing a black robe.

That black robe thing is really bad. I mean really. Think about it. Is it necessary for them to wear black robes to perform their function? Like, are we worried that people won't know they're the judge if they don't wear that?

I don't think so. I think it's part of making little tin Lords out of them.

[JohnStOnge]

If a judge abuses his authority in this respect, then have a system by which he or she can be censured or even removed from the bench. Don't get rid of the authority.

I think you are basically taking an "ends justify means" approach. In this country, the idea is supposed to be that if you commit a crime you have a right to a trial by a jury of your peers. What we're talking about here is a government official unilaterally just declaring you guilty of a crime in an instant.

I do not believe that court proceedings would descend into chaos if that power were removed. I have no problem with them having the power to remove them from the courtroom. That's all they need to do in order to maintain order in the court. They don't HAVE to have the power to unilaterally throw somebody in jail.

[JohnStOnge]

I mean, just think about it. Do you not think that a citizen of the United States should have the right to talk back to the government official? Do you REALLY think that a government official should have the right to say, "If you talk back to me in a way I don't like I'm going to throw you in jail" then do that unilaterallly with no process other than the official saying "I''m throwing you in jail?"

It just amazes me that anybody who thinks we should live in a "free" country would think that. Heck you can be thrown in jail by a judge because he doesn't like the way you dress when you come to court. Do you REALLY support that?

[∞∞∞]

Good, throw that bitch in jail. Stop further pussifying America by excusing such behavior. The judge asked her to stop, she didn't, and then she proceeded to attack the judge. We don't need to waste more time and money on a new hearing to determine if she was in contempt of court.

[JohnStOnge]

Good, throw that bitch in jail. Stop further pussifying America by excusing such behavior. The judge asked her to stop, she didn't, and then she proceeded to attack the judge. We don't need to waste more time and money on a new hearing to determine if she was in contempt of court.

The question isn't about what happened after the Judge declared her in contempt of court. The question is whether or nont she should have been unilaterally declared as being in "contempt of court" with a 10 day jaul sentence to begin with.

What it comes down to is that a government official had the power to unilaterially jail somebody just because somebody talked back to them a little bit. Should a government official be able to tell somebody to be quiet then jail them if they continue to speak in a relatively calm way? I don't think so. And I'm discouraged by the fact that so many find that to be acceptable.

[∞∞∞]

JSO, to me this situation is like corporal punishments in school. Like the judge, a teacher is a public servant. Like the courtroom, the classroom is their domain. If a student is misbehaving in the teacher's domain, the teacher should have the ability to deal a swift punishment without all the bureacracy. It might sound unfair to the kid that they have to get a paddling or whatever, but it's a lesson learned the hard way...which I think is the best way. The only difference is that here we have an adult misbehaving and the punishment is jail. The woman should suck it up, do her time, reflect on her actions, and move on with life.

[catamount man]

WRONG. As somebody who deals with white trash in the public sector, I'm glad this judge gave her 10 days. White trash does nothing but pollute this planet with their penchant for cheap drugs, trailer parks, and their blatant disrespect for all things in higher authority. White trash does not even pay their bills and then bitches because the prices of good and services go up. Kudos to the judge! Hope this Milwaukee's Best drinking loser can actually wake up and take stock of herself while she is in jail. Yes, I'm prejudiced against all forms of lazy, white trash.

[Ivytalk]

JSO extrapolates from a judge's contempt power to a contempt for black robes and for the concept that public officials are entitled to a certain level of respect. I suppose that "Mr. President" is an expression of servility and obsequiousness? Or "your Honor" is the equivalent of "massa"? Let's distinguish between actual acts of overreach, like judicial legislation or excessive Executive power, and the entitlement of office holders to a modicum of inherent power and authority by virtue of public law, training and experience.

[kalm]

JSO extrapolates from a judge's contempt power to a contempt for black robes and for the concept that public officials are entitled to a certain level of respect. I suppose that "Mr. President" is an expression of servility and obsequiousness? Or "your Honor" is the equivalent of "massa"? Let's distinguish between actual acts of overreach, like judicial legislation or excessive Executive power, and the entitlement of office holders to a modicum of inherent power and authority by virtue of public law, training and experience.

Fearlessly the idiot faced the crowd, smiling
mercyless the magistrate turns round, frowning
and who's the fool who wears the crown
go down in your own way
and every day is the right day
and as you rise above the fear-lines in his crown
you look down, hearing the sound of the faces in the growd

I have absolutley no clue how this ties into the discussion, but I found myself beginning to agree with JSO until your uncharacteristically sober and sincere post.

[JohnStOnge]

So, IvyTalk, why do you think it is necessary for judges to wear black robes?

[Rob Iola]

So, IvyTalk, why do you think it is necessary for judges to wear black robes?

Because white robes could be misinterpreted?

[youngterrier]

So, IvyTalk, why do you think it is necessary for judges to wear black robes?

because a judge is supposed to be fair and balanced. If he makes an appearance with any sort of suit/anything else that isn't uniform, he endorses a product and therefore shows bias. Robes are superior to suits in the sense that suits have different brands that a trained eye could see and therefore would still imply bias.

that's my guess and

[CID1990]

So, IvyTalk, why do you think it is necessary for judges to wear black robes?

It isn't. It is just tradition, carried over from old English common law.

Hey, at least we lost the wigs.

I can think of lots more things to get irritated about, but then maybe I lack perspective. I can see if I spent most of my childhood getting my lunch money taken away by the big kids I might be more pissed about things like this.

[Ivytalk]

So, IvyTalk, why do you think it is necessary for judges to wear black robes?

It isn't. It is just tradition, carried over from old English common law.

Hey, at least we lost the wigs.

I can think of lots more things to get irritated about, but then maybe I lack perspective. I can see if I spent most of my childhood getting my lunch money taken away by the big kids I might be more pissed about things like this.

CID's right. What's wrong with a little tradition now and then?

[Ivytalk]

JSO extrapolates from a judge's contempt power to a contempt for black robes and for the concept that public officials are entitled to a certain level of respect. I suppose that "Mr. President" is an expression of servility and obsequiousness? Or "your Honor" is the equivalent of "massa"? Let's distinguish between actual acts of overreach, like judicial legislation or excessive Executive power, and the entitlement of office holders to a modicum of inherent power and authority by virtue of public law, training and experience.

Fearlessly the idiot faced the crowd, smiling
mercyless the magistrate turns round, frowning
and who's the fool who wears the crown
go down in your own way
and every day is the right day
and as you rise above the fear-lines in his crown
you look down, hearing the sound of the faces in the growd

I have absolutley no clue how this ties into the discussion, but I found myself beginning to agree with JSO until your uncharacteristically sober and sincere post.

Uncharacteristically sober? This board is too dangerous to post on while inebriated!