This. The exact analogy I was thinking of was a baseball umpire.
Both umpires and judges are representors of the system and the rules. Showing disrespect to them shows disrespect and a lack of willingness to follow the rules of society (the game). That has to be shut down quickly or justice (and baseball) becomes untenable.
Now, custom requires umpires put up with a certain amount of nonsense, provided it’s not personal, to ease the proceedings. (As the movie Bull Durham indicated, you can say ‘that was a cocksucking call!’ but you can’t say ‘you’re a cocksucker’ to an umpire.) Judges have a certain amount of leeway, too, in that they are largely the arbiter of what constitutes contempt in their court. I’ve known many judges (some to my detriment) and they had different levels at which they would start enforcing things. One of the wiser ones I know once told me he tried to give people the benefit of the doubt if they were blowing off steam because he knew they were under stress. But he didn’t do it always, and disrespect directed AT the bench would get even him to land on someone with both feet.
A little different attitude here than in the thread on that girl, where a fair number of people argued that you should be allowed to display all manner of contempt in court and the judge should just have a thicker skin.
But the courtroom isn’t the armed forces so I fail to see the point here. Nor does it matter what happened 50 years ago. 100 years women couldn’t vote, 50 years racism was still rampant throughout society. Why does it matter what would have happened 50 years ago when we are talking about something that happens today? Society progresses.
As to the comparison to Baseball umpires. Baseball is a game. What we are talking about is removing someone’s freedom. Not whether or not they get to continue playing a game. Vastly different. Same with hockey, or any other game. Never can an umpire or referee take away your freedom. A judge can, and I think, should be very cognizant of the power of this, and hesitant to use it.
I don’t think its right or proper to insult a judge in a courtroom. In fact it seems very very dumb, and not a good way to go about proving your innocence, or getting some leniency. However the judge has other powers beyond removing freedom. Could he not of just fined the guy? Or kicked him out of the courtroom, and tried him in absentia? Perhaps not, I have no idea about the particular law. 60 days of jailtime (the guy served 33 days in jail, as per his interview on Tosh.0 where I saw this first) seems to be out of control, to me.
Yeah, you’d think they’d start smaller. Like OK, one day in jail. Now it’s two days. Not enough, still won’t stop? Now it’s a week. Wanna keep talking?
News outlets from the area say that the judge thought the guy had learned his lesson and let him out after four days:
The guy says he served 33 days on Tosh.0, but he says he was offered probation and chose jail time instead - he’s talking about the 33 days he plea bargained for on his original criminal charge. As far as kicking him out of the courtroom, it was a bond hearing that had already concluded and the guy was already in jail, so that’s not going to do much good. Fining is only a deterrent if you actually have money, and if the guy is choosing jail time over probation he’d probably just be sitting out any fine he gets in jail anyway. All things considered the guy got off pretty easy. Moral of the story, don’t call the guy you’re asking to let you out of jail a cock while you’re doing it.
Did you stop reading my post midway through? Let me repost the relevant portion:
The lawyer story you’re linking to is a case of civil contempt, not criminal contempt. The punishment goes on indefinitely because it is punishment for ongoing refusal to comply with a court order that the individual was deemed to have the ability to comply with.
FWIW, this is a somewhat different problem, i.e., a disruptive defendant. As I read the transcript, this case was about whether the defendant, having refused to cooperate with counsel, could delay trial by deliberate contempt. The judge said “no” (while allowing counsel to withdraw). He (or she) wasn’t so much concerned about decorum as moving the case forward. And showed admirable restraint, IMHO.
Calling a person who happens to be a judge names is not any more illegal than calling anybody else names. The problem is when it happens in court; the fault is not being disrespectful of the person in the high box, but of the system.
Yes, exactly this, with the caveat that the expected respect is of the institution “this court” as re[resentative of the legal system under which we live.
A very apt parallel is in the instructions of a Republican general to his adult serviceman sons, also Republican, during the run-up to WWII: “You can say anything you like about Frank Roosevelt, but you will salute the President of the United States.” The distinction between man and office has never been clearer to me than in that quote.
What’s the difference. If you are forced to be in a court room (or choose to be on), how is that different than being drafted or volunteering for the armed forces?
You are placed by society, or place yourself, in a situation where certain rules apply. If we were making things up from scratch, probably they would not be anything like that, but the rules are as they are. The same with sports. The rules are as they are concerning the rights of the officials for historical reasons.
(Look how much work it took to allow video replays to second guess officials’ calls in sports… not because they were worried about offending the sensibilties of officials, but because then the question is - where does it stop? At what point is the official allowed to make their own call without the players running to momma for a replay? If the official is just a waypoint on the way to further appeals and appeals of appeals, where’s the respect?)
As mentioned, it is a serious place, and emotions can run high, and the immature and desperate can do interesting things when stressed. Like the sports analogy, while some actions are allowed, for others you must keep a very tight lid on.
30 days may have been a little excessive, but likely too we did not see the person’s demeanour through the whole court appearance. They may have been pushing the limits, and now that was the straw etc. Or the judge was in a foul mood - who knows? It says smething of the person’s character that they did not learn from the first contempt citation - meaning likely the sentence was properly earned.
Also, for some people, 30 days in jail is nothing. (And they know they’ll be out in a week).