In the mirror, you feel that it is OK for the person to smart mouth the judge; disrespect the system and ignore the law?
It's not ok that's why he can send her away for a few days or weeks. Lets say she keeps mouthing off should he be able to send her away for 10 years. 30 years?
I expect a judge to have a cool head. He can maintain order in the courtroom by saying 30 days and having her escorted out of the courtroom immediately.
In Chadwick v. Janecka (3d Cir. 2002), it was established that contempt of court can be any length of time (in this instance, the person was in jail already for 9 years at the time of the case, and was finally let free after 14 years). If someone feels like continuously smarting off to a judge, then there is no limit as far as how much time the judge can give them.
The reason contempt of court was put into law in the first place was so that the courtroom didn't have to deal with people trying to impede the regular functioning of the court. If contempt wasn't a rule, people could sit there all day and talk smack if they wanted and the courtroom wouldn't function smoothly because it would be held up.
Therefore the onus is on the person appearing before court to behave themselves. The person gaining time from contempt of court really has nobody to blame but themselves; if they're too stupid to not keep mouthing off, then the increasing jail time is their fault. Blaming the judge because someone can't find the means to control their temper is ridiculous, especially when it's so completely trivial to avoid contempt simply by keeping your frigging mouth shut.
This is by far not the longest sentence for contempt of court, refusing to testify can be quite costly.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...-20111007_1_appeals-court-witness-murder-case
http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/man-sentenced-15-months-refusal-testify
And the one constant in all those cases was that the person jailed was black and the person do the jailing was white. The judges were obvious racists. It is sad that the KKK has basically infiltrated our court system.
Liberalism in a nut-shell. If anything it should be rewarded.
Instead of the judge putting her in jail she should have been given a taxpayer funded stay at the Hilton while the restraining order was in place, since she had no place to stay
Lets say keeps mouthing off for 12 hours straight is the judge going to keep adding years to the contempt charge. Is the judge going to allow that and how is that productive for anybody. After a week max she can come back and by them I'm sure she would learn to shut her mouth is my point. If she hasn't then by all means jail her further.
Tell me what that accomplish. Sending her off and letting her think about it for a week accomplishes much more instead of wasting all this money keeping her in jail.
I'm not saying jailing someone for contempt is retarded I'm only saying this kind of length is retarded.
My point is he can let her sit in jail for a period of time so she knows exactly what that means before adding days ad nauseum.
And the one constant in all those cases was that the person jailed was black and the person doing the jailing was white. The judges were probably racist to some degree.
And the one constant in all those cases was that the person jailed was black and the person doing the jailing was white. The judges were probably racist to some degree.
Maybe those black people that were held in contempt need to learn some respect for the system.
Do they want/need to be treated special because of their race. :whiste:
why would those black "respect the system" if its doing things like that? maybe there should be a requirement that a judge act respectable in the first place. do you honestly think that judge wasnt being racist? i doubt he would have done the same thing to a professional looking white guy
I think you're absolutely correct. Upon considering your post, I stand corrected. Giving more and more days after the original 30 was non-productive. After the 30 days sentence for contempt, that should have been the end of it, volume turned off/ignored.The main point of a contempt sentence is a period of time in the slammer that forces the offender to think about what they've done (or haven't done, in cases where the judge is trying to force compliance with a court order) and (hopefully) change their behavior. But this judge seems to think that contempt sentences are punishment. Unfortunately, that's illegal under the due process clause of the Constitution.
No, the proper procedure is to give the woman 30 days, then bring her back and see if her attitude's changed. If not, give her another 30 days. At some point, a trial on the original charges will occur, with or without her cooperation, a verdict will be decided, and a sentence imposed if she's found guilty. At that point, any remaining contempt sentence becomes irrelevant.
Can we please leave the racist crap out of the thread? Based upon the video and article there was zero racism at play here.
With all the things we put up with in society, how is being disrespectful still a crime?
I think you're absolutely correct. Upon considering your post, I stand corrected. Giving more and more days after the original 30 was non-productive. After the 30 days sentence for contempt, that should have been the end of it, volume turned off/ignored.
disagree
She needed at least another 30 after refusing to acknowledge what the first 30 was for.
Essentially the judge said shut up.
she said piss off.
Judge said 30 - listen to me
she said piss off again.
Judge now should say 30 + 30 - take her away.
The follow-up could have been avoided by both.
will she have the brains to try to apologize
I love this thread. The hypocritical dumb wits are here in force. I would love to see a video of one of you idiots mouthing off a judge.
Post it after your jail time for contempt of court. I will have many lulz.
Did someone here indicate judges should be mouthed off to?
There are people in this world make poor decisions, they run their mouthes, they act like spoiled brats, they demonstrate a basic inability to control themselves. Is the appropriate rememedy for that to lock them up at taxpayer's expense? Nobody here, I think, views the convict as being in the right, but I have a hard time understanding why people think judges should be able to hand out jail time because someone has poor impulse control. If they are disruptive, remove them from the court room, it is that simple. Turning it into a liability for the taxpayer accomplishes nothing.
So what should a judge do with a disruptive person in tbe court room.
Removal does not accomplish anything. The person does not want to be there and is showing such.
That is rewarding bad behavior.
Reschedule for another trial. That also costs taxpayer money if the same happens.
So what should a judge do with a disruptive person in tbe court room.
Removal does not accomplish anything. The person does not want to be there and is showing such.
That is rewarding bad behavior.
Reschedule for another trial. That also costs taxpayer money if the same happens.
Who cares what they want? If you absolutely must "punish" them, throw them in lockup for a few hours, I'll wager few of them would prefer that to a five minute lecture. What is accomplished by keeping them there in the first place?