PM sent
Yes, I see a profound difference, and it is a matter of essentially style and substance.
In a courtroom, folks have great latitude to disagree on substance. If a party believes that a judge ruled contrary to the law, the party can generally appeal and have another judge review the decision. Informing the court of a disagreement with a ruling in the style of yelling “Fuck yooooooouuuuuuu!” is prohibited. The style of how the substantive disagreement plays out is important, because I agree with nearly everyone else that having decorum in the process generally keeps things moving along substantively. The courtroom is an adversarial process, with parties portraying their own sides of the matter that obviously could not be reconciled by themselves. Maintaining decorum allows the disagreements to be fleshed out on a more substantive level.
In North Korea, there’s no such distinction. It is impossible to disagree with authorities in style or on substance. The punishments for being disagreeable are simply intended to smash any different thought than the one approved by the government. That is not the same at all as what happens in a courtroom.
What you and Barack Obama appear to be confused on is whether any expression of power is wrong. Both the most liberal, free-love democracy and the worst repressive, murderous autocracy uses power to govern… but that doesn’t make them on the same moral plane.
Right. A local lawyer was recently threatened with contempt for wearing a pin that arguably reflected a political message. The judge told her to take it off; she refused. The judge didn’t hold her in contempt, but could have. The specific issue in that instance is that she was insistent on displaying her own message, possibly to her client’s detriment.
I was going to make a joke about the parallels between them and SDMB mods, but it seems a little too risque now. 
Fair enough, perhaps my comparison was too extreme, although I still see the heart of it as reasonable. However, I still see comparisons that are valid to things which I believe most people who would call themselves in favor of justice and freedom seem to condemn as far as I’m aware. Here’s a very obvious one that probably should have been my first comparison, but I didn’t think of it at the time: Lèse-majesté laws, where a person can be sentenced for insulting or otherwise offending the dignity of a sovereign.
Perhaps the most well-known for some reason is Thailand, but they exist in a number of other countries. I am honestly surprised at some of the few uses in modern European countries, now that I look it up, but the majority of uses are in places that we consider tyrannical/authoritarian. Such laws are used in Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and others. Even in the Netherlands, which surprised me, there is such a law and it is used, though somewhat rarely - there has been outrage about it and some call to have it changed, but so far as I understand it has not yet been.
Would you say all of those are illegitimate, while the court system’s authority is legitimate? If so, why?
Or do you find this comparison, too, inadequate?
I mean, I too want authorities to maintain order; I just don’t want them to use their power to take freedom from someone who hasn’t done anything substantial, who has used only words and gestures. That goes beyond ‘order’, in my opinion.
We’re not talking about substantial defiance that actually has an effect on things, but verbal and symbolic defiance, without disrupting the system or causing it to function less effectively. I fully understand that we must have a court system that must be obeyed when it makes substantial, meaningful decisions, and cannot allow itself to be substantially disrupted. I think, however, empowering that system to punish you for swearing about its decisions is tyrannical. For showing symbolic defiance only, for showing your dislike for what has just happened.
And this is a case in which the judicial authority is making up the rules. The judge makes up whatever rules he wants and can punish you for breaking them.
There’s a huge difference between whatever penalty you can impose as a teacher, or your school’s administration is able to impose, and the power to take a person’s freedom and fine them. Furthermore, your students are there voluntarily, so whatever punishments they subject themselves to are implicitly agreed to by their choice to be there. People in court are often there involuntarily, and while they must be subject to punishment if they’ve done something to land themselves there, they haven’t agreed to have their behavior, vocabulary, and gestures scrutinized and punished if they step out of an arbitrary line.
And I can imagine a courtroom that does not enforce discipline for behavior that is not materially disruptive. It would be almost indistinguishable from the current courts, except occasionally someone would wear jeans instead of a suit, and on other occasions, someone would shout ‘fuck you!’ to the judge and flip them off.
Since I still fully agree with doing something about actually disruptive behavior, since the court needs to function, there wouldn’t be any significant difference if someone is arguing with the judge, spewing nonsense to delay things, or otherwise making the court not function well. A person ignoring legitimate instructions by the judge (and by legitimate, I mean something related to the judicial process, not to their mode of dress or personal behavior or vocabulary) should still be punished; a jail sentence or fine for disrupting the operation of the court is totally fine with me. Just…not one for being rude.
So let’s just look at the bolded part. If you were in charge, jeans would be ok, right? How about shorts? How about no shirt? How about just a bathing suit? What if I showed up as a defendant wearing a sandwich board that said “the judge is a fink”? Nothing really disruptive there, right?
How many times can I yell “fuck you” to the judge? Do they have to wait until I say it x times before they can remove me from he courtroom? Can I say it more often if I don’t yell? What if I just write it down and hold the piece of paper up occasionally? Is that okay or would that be contempt?
Guess what? You are talking about defiance to the court system right now. You can do that freely. You will not be punished for that by the government. You can vent on message boards, write books, get newspapers to print editorials, make a documentary, post on Twitter, and be as profane as you like. You can spend all of your life saying that the courts are fascist and the system authoritarian and lawyers are a cult and if the flag has fringe then it’s an Admiralty court and not binding on you. No court will care, even if you get a large following and people take your words seriously.
The only thing you can’t do is say all those things in court while it is in session. And even then, anything the judge says or does is liable to oversight, correction, and discipline.
That’s the difference between court decorum and lèse-majesté. It’s a gigantically huge difference, a matter of freedom that permeates the entire society that calls for curbs only in the narrowest cases. It is exactly parallel to the First Amendment freedom, which is similarly pervasive but not unlimited. People have voluntarily submitted to the laws of the land merely by being there. You are subject to local laws wherever you are, whether you are in your home country or not. Nobody asks whether you have agreed to all the laws, nor even if you are aware of them. Being subject to laws in inherently part of civilization; the U.S. didn’t invent this notion. Behavior in court is part of those laws. You have agreed to follow them just as must as you agreed to pay taxes and not commit murder. Your understanding of voluntary compliance is ignorance at the deepest level. That’s exactly why there’s a saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse. You’re not merely ignorant of a particular law, but of the entire system of laws that underlies every aspect of society.
You are, of course, free to ask that the system be tweaked or nudged or profoundly restructured. As history proves over and over, you just won’t get anywhere with change unless you understand how it works now and why.
As for dress, I’d say the same rules apply as walking down Main Street on an average day. If you would be subject to arrest for inappropriate exposure or something like that, then you’ll be removed from the courtroom and punished in accordance with that law, because you’re exposing yourself inappropriately. Hell, I’m willing to say you have to at least have a shirt and shoes on, like you have to to enter most public establishments. Otherwise, you can show up wearing a clown suit, or dressed as Batman, or in your sandwich board saying the judge is a fink, as far as I’m concerned. These things do not materially disrupt the proceedings; it interrupts nothing.
That said, it’s probably inadvisable to dress that way. If you’re a lawyer, your client might not like it, and that’s a totally fair person to be judging and dictating your appearance, because your appearance may influence the jury or even the judge, therefore your client absolutely has the appropriate position to be telling you to dress right; if he doesn’t like it, he can fire you, but he cannot have you imprisoned. If you’re the defendant, or the plaintiff (in civil court, for instance), you’re creating a negative impression of yourself and that’s probably unwise. But it would seem to me to be your choice.
As far as yelling fuck you to the judge, you can do it as long as it doesn’t disrupt the proceedings. Are you interrupting something? That’s not allowed. Are you doing it while walking out, once everything is done? That causes no disruption to the court. If you’re muttering it under your breath, or grumbling it in a way that doesn’t make it difficult for the court to continue, then I don’t see why the judge should get involved. And if you write it on a piece of paper and hold it up now and then, that’s not a disturbance at all. It doesn’t stop anyone else from speaking, listening, or having the proceedings continue.
To me, the simple test would be: does this genuinely disturb the court? Can any of the involved people, the judge, the lawyers, etc, not hear, see, or say something because of it? In that case it’s a disturbance and shouldn’t be allowed. Otherwise it’s not materially affecting how the court functions.
I disagree with the concept of ‘contempt’ because it implies that you should be able to be punished for having or displaying contempt toward the court. I think there should be a charge of ‘disrupting the smooth functioning of the court’ or something along those lines, because that’s what really needs to be prevented strongly enough to justify actual imprisonment and punishment.
Okay; thanks for the added details.
So the fact that every time I hold up my piece of paper people look at it, rather than paying attention to the court proceedings, is not disruptive? Good to know! Can I make sure it makes a little noise every time I hold it up, in case people aren’t looking when I do it? Just a little noise, like the paper bending in the air, that little “fwip” sound?
Who will decide whether or not something disrupts the court?
Soooooooo … contempt has nothing to actually do with hindering the march of justice. It has to do whether or not the judge thinks you are disrespecting them based on any sort of whim? What if the attorney put of some weight and had not gotten larger shirts yet?
IANAL, but my impression is that it could be either one, or both. My impression is also that judges aren’t completely arbitrary in it, at least usually (nothing like “I hate red-heads so let’s throw this ginger lawyer in jail for two weeks”). But it’s a time and a place that it would be foolish to try to push that particular person’s buttons.
If a judge pulled me up front and told me “tomorrow, wear a better-fitting shirt”, I’d damn sure show up the following day with a better-fitting shirt.
Oh I get it. Not wearing a sportscoat in court should be a finable or jailable offense because not being professional in dress will destroy the American judicial system. Got it.
Not wearing a tie in court leads to anarchy? Attorney are children that need to be told what clothes to wear? And btw: school uniforms are worn for reasons other than what you state.
I think the issue is with judges on power trips thinking they are omnipotent and do not answer to anyone. I actually think it is a huge problem if a judge can jail someone for not wearing a tie in court.
Just speculating here, but I gather some find it inherently offensive to consider the idea that in a certain place and time, someone else might have the last word* by law* and there is nothing they can do about it. To someone convinced of the concept that they can say whatever they want, however they want, for as long as they want, that may be quite the bitter pill.
I “question authority” as much or more than most people. Nonetheless, I’m not bothered by a dress code for attorneys in court. I’m a slob at work, at home, at restaurants, etc, but in court, I’m wearing my suit and tie. The formality is important and loosening standards will indeed start eroding the credibility of the process.
And yes, some attorneys would abuse the freedom to decide for themselves what is appropriate. Some push the limits under the current system.
I beg to differ. Mrs. Cad came very close to being jailed for contempt for violating a court order that we showed early on was forged, in fact she “signed” when she was out of the country. Her attorney was almost jailed for contempt when he objected to the judge saying “We don’t like you LA attorneys up here on our courts.” So guess what happened after the months of the trial when her ex-husband was forced to admit it was never a valid order because he got “some attorney in line at the court house” to sign it who was never a judge or magistrate. He wasn’t found in contempt for forging a court order or his lies in open court. That’s not contempt? The attorney that basically forged the court order wasn’t found in contempt but he would of had he not worn a tie or buttoned his top button?
Perhaps you got one of the unusual ones. Look, I’m sympathetic to your distrust of the legal system. I don’t particularly like the judiciary either, but my understanding is that “contempt of court” is the broad tool given to judges in the same way that “disorderly conduct” / “disturbing the peace” are broad tools given to police to generally maintain order and put a halt to disruptions in their respective domains. I don’t really like broad catch-all laws like that, but I don’t know that there’s very much we can do about it (and the time to try to do something about it sure as hell isn’t while the cop is cuffing you for disorderly conduct or the judge is berating you for contempt).
Hell, even if you could convince Congress / a state legislature to remove “contempt of court”-type authority from judges (which seems extremely unlikely), in this day and age of judges ruling along whatever their political beliefs are, I would not be particularly surprised if a judge ruled that that law were out of order and suspended it.
ETA: as for the attorney forging court documents, I hope there’s a penalty more severe than contempt for that, but oftentimes institutions like to protect their own, and it wouldn’t surprise me if the courts shielded that attorney either.
I don’t know enough about the laws you mention to have an informed opinion, but see above about the difference between contempt of the judiciary vs. contempt for the executive. Also, I think there is an inherent difference between expressing that contempt inside vs. outside the courtroom.
The purpose of the contempt laws are to facilitate the smooth operation of the judicial system. One is not an ordinary citizen in the court. That doesn’t mean you have no rights; it means you cannot use those rights to the same degree or in the same way as you do outside. You have (in the US) the right to remain silent if you are arrested. You have the right to an attorney if you are arrested. You do not have the right not to be arrested - even if you are innocent. You have the right to move freely - but the police can briefly detain you, and prevent you from leaving, if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, even if you are completely innocent. You have the right to freedom of speech, but you cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater. There are times and places and circumstances where innocent people can have their rights limited, in the interest of good order. Those circumstances are generally limited - but that doesn’t mean there aren’t any such circumstances. IOW we all give up some rights, to a certain degree and under some circumstances, in pursuit of a greater good, which is public order.
That doesn’t mean that all such instances are justified, or that abuses never happen. It means, in general, that rights are not unlimited.
I would say that, whenever you are in the courtroom, yelling Fuck You is going to be inherently disruptive. That’s a space where a certain level of decorum can be expected and enforced. Flipping off the judge, on your way out of a bail hearing, is not only stupid. It is disruptive. If you are dumb or spoiled or wasted enough not to be able to control yourself until you get out into the hallway, you are too dumb or spoiled or wasted to be out on an average level of bail for the given offense. Bail is there so you take the process seriously. Flipping the judge the bird is pretty clear evidence that you are not taking the process seriously.
Plus, it sets a bad example. If one bitch can get away with telling the judge Fuck You on the way out, that encourages some other bitch (male or female) to tell the judge Fuck You on the way in, or during the hearing, or at any other point during the judicial process.
I don’t think you need to interrupt to disrupt, to put it that way. “Mind your manners whenever you are in court” is an easier and IMO more productive standard than “go ahead and behave like an asshole sometimes as long as you don’t interrupt”.
It’s not that tough a standard to expect. Behaving like an adult and not a four-year-old tends to make things run more smoothly for everyone.
YMMV.
Regards,
Shodan
No, it’s fraud, not contempt of court.
As for your judge charging your lawyer with contempt of court, well, judges are human beings and they are certainly capable of abusing their authority. But judges have to have that authority, otherwise anyone could shut down the court just by yelling and making a fuss, like hecklers shutting down a public event. A judge has to have the authority to deal with hecklers or the rule of law is impossible.
Can they abuse that authority? Yes, of course, and therefore judges have to have oversight for their authority, and as I said before that oversight takes many forms.
If your complaint was that you went through a lot of time and effort due to some asshole’s fraud, and didn’t get the satisfaction you hoped for from the justice system, well, again, the justice system is a human institution and so it’s flawed.
A court proceeding is where one party and a second party disagree about something, and a third party is called upon to adjudicate between them. There has to be someone enforcing the rules, and we entrust the third party to do that, despite the fact that the third party judge is a fallible human being just like everyone else. The only other option is to have a fourth party sitting there whose only job is to enforce decorum, except for the most part things run pretty smoothly voluntarily, and so this fourth party will in 99.99% of cases be sitting there collecting a fat salary doing nothing. And that fourth party is just as prey to the foibles of human nature as the sitting judge, and are just as likely to be arbitrary about dress codes or other irrelevancies as a judge.
And so in a court proceeding, since the judge has the authority to adjudicate the dispute they also have the authority to enforce the rules of decorum, and their authority is not subject to review by the two parties in the dispute, but only by fourth parties some time later. Your lawyer might object to some decision, and it’s up to the judge to listen or reject that objection, and if the judge makes a mistake it’s up to the appellate judges to correct that mistake, not telling the judge to go fuck himself.
Yes and I get that but the problem is that maintaining decorum apparently applies equally (for some judges) to some SovCit raving about traveling and gold fringe and interrupting the Judge and some attorney with no socks or a button undone. Please explain to me how those are disruptive.