Comment by Analemma_
19 hours ago
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.
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.
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!
The “system” is comprised of normal people. These normal people are vastly more concerned about furthering their own career,ie “Winning”. No one should trust this system to ever find any real justice. It is a joke.
What happens when you are not guilty and/or not in posession of whatever you are supposed to hand over?
Such systems must be built in a way that allow to correct errors, because it's well known that errors are made.
A jury could have decided whether his refusal to disclose made him guilty of a crime deserving of that punishment. Authority and power are two different things. Lots of people have authority without the power to unilaterally throw people in prison indefinitely.
3 replies →
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?
9 replies →
“The only way people can trust the system is if judges can put anybody away indefinitely/permanently without trial” is such a funny idea. That is the premise of Judge Dredd. It’s like saying “Judge Dredd needs to exist”.
I am not a law genius but it seems like in real life since judges can charge plaintiffs, defendants, lawyers, and witnesses with contempt the whole “infinity jail is on the table for every person in the room” thing would make people less likely to want to engage with the civil or criminal justice systems.
Total BS. You can do anything. We have politicians to create meaningful laws. What we have instead in this case is a fucking faschists.
They charged him with contempt of court, which is a crime, after 3 years where he'd been avoiding demands to appear in court.
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?
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.
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
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?
After a decade in prison without being charged.
1 reply →
After a decade.
1 reply →
> since you can get out any time you want.
If you dont hate whats requested, how do you get out any time you want?
> 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.
> 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.
> 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
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?
1 reply →
Dude I've forgotten computer passwords I've used 4-5 days a week for years; one day it was just gone.
>"the balance of evidence "
Do not make me laugh. What evidence? Persons can and do forget most obvious things.
1 reply →
>"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.
[dead]
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.