From: jim bell <jimbell@pacifier.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 14:29:01 +0800
To: Hal <unicorn@schloss.li
Subject: Re:  What can the judge do to me?
Message-ID: <m0u8wb7-0008zLC@pacifier.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


At 10:21 AM 4/15/96 -0700, Hal wrote:
>From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>

>
>> The key to limiting the ability of a court to summarily enter contempt 
>> sanctions has always been the classification of the sanctions.  
>> "Criminal" sanctions, may entitle the witness to a trial by jury.
>> [...]
>> "Civil" sanctions do 
>> not require such protections and can be imposed on the spot and 
>> without review.
>
>I didn't understand what distinguishes civil and criminal sanctions.  Is
>it the nature of the proceedings, whether it is a civil or criminal case
>that is before the judge?  Or is it the nature of the contempt charge
>itself, where not doing what the judge wants, in broad terms, is civil
>contempt?  And in that case, what would be criminal contempt?

He may answer those questions, but I don't think he'll dare answer the 
question about if there is a constituional justification for a difference 
between "civil" and "criminal" in most things the government's courts do.  
My impression is that the "civil" classification is often simply used to 
dilute or eliminate the various constitutional protections that the 
government hasn't yet dared to remove from areas it calls "criminal."

Too bad we won't get a straight answer...

We also won't get a straight answer about the constitutional justification 
for "contempt of court" penalties at all!  The Constitution defines the 
powers of government; it does not restrict those of the people. The idea 
that a judge can punish someone, especially someone not present in court, is 
bizarre.  It is even more odd when such punishment appears to exceed what 
the government is allowed to do absent any kind of jury decision and 
conviction.

If you're willing to accept NON-Constitutional "justifications," I'm sure 
you'll get plenty of that.

The only hint of a Constitutional obligation to testify comes from an 
amendment which states that defendants have a right to compel testimony 
favorable to them; it does not say that prosecution has the right to compel 
testimony from a third party that incriminates a defendant.    If his 
response is, "Oh, but we've ALWAYS done it that way!", you need to remember 
that until the American Civil war, slavery was legal in southern states, and 
until 1920 women weren't allowed to vote, and until 1955 "separate but 
equal" was the law of the land, until 1972 or so the death penalty was 
constitutional...and then it wasn't...and then it was again...and so on.  
Government is never willing to admit it's wrong until it's good and ready.  
That doesn't mean we can't express our own opinions "prematurely."

I'd sure like to hear the "why" behind this stuff, but I won't...  Sigh.