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.