Slashdot Mirror
Jack Thompson To Face Contempt Charge
Gamasutra has the story (by way of the currently-down GamePolitics) that Jack Thompson could be facing a contempt charge over his antics during the Bully fiasco. From the article: "According to the report, the contempt of court request could find Thompson facing jail time, though it is more likely that 'fines, judicial admonishment or censure' would result from this most recent turn of events. The report also notes that attorneys representing the Philadelphia law firm Blank-Rome have filed a 'Petition for Order to Show Cause,' which requires Thompson to illustrate to a judge why he should not be held in contempt."
In an email to GamePolitics, Thompson has responded to this request, writing, "You want to play hardball...? You want to try to throw me in jail? You have no idea what you are unleashing in doing this. You're at the brink..."
Jesus.
Not a lawyer (won't use the abbreviation, because it's gross), but a "contempt finding" is a separate matter from a criminal conviction. Basically, as a means to allow courts to "take care of their business", judges are given wide lattitude in punishments they can use to keep people in line while they're in the courtroom. All that is necessary is that a judge issue a finding of "contempt of court" and he can issue a variety of usually-lower-grade (compared to criminal convictions) punishments. Now, you can certainly say it's wrong that judges should have this power, but as it stands, most contempt findings don't need a jury trial, so to ask that, he'd be asking to overturn quite a bit of tradition.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
Well, it depends on the exact reasoning behind the petition, which the referenced news bite (can't call it an article) admits it doesn't have. For example, if I walk into court and call the judge a flaming asshole, I can be held in contempt of court and put in jail. There's no necessity for my guilt to be proven further because what I did was right there in court and on the record. The same might apply to a situation where a lawyer is under a "gag order" and goes on TV in defiance of the order. That lawyer can be held in contempt and, again, there's no trial involved once the violation of the judge's order is in evidence. Such situations can still be eligible for appeal, but a trial per se isn't necessary for the judge to make the initial decision.
Again, I don't know the details of this specific claim, but there's a reason why many (most?) lawyers want to be judges. A lot of power comes with the robe, even in this age of "mandatory minimums" and the like.
1d4 + 0 to -3 (depending how much their constitution is reduced for their age)
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
There are plenty of checks and balances, most notably that the normal citizen going about his business is never in a position to be bound by the order so he can't be in contempt of it. If you're subject to the court's order, you're either a party, or one of the parties' lawyers, or a third party that has been dragged in to this mess. Third parties generally don't get orders made against them without the right to appear and argue why the order should or shouldn't go. Usually, people get added to these things when it's a question of implementation of orders made against/between parties - the court orders A to do X for B, but C actually holds the money and isn't doing jack squat without an order requiring them to.
You do occasionally get John Doe orders against any and all people currently illegally occupying a property, or whatever, but they're not especially common outside the labour context and environmental protests.
MHO. YMMV. Any resemblance between this post and real persons, or reality in general, was accidental.
RTFA. This wasn't the judge telling Jack the Dripper to show cause that he shouldn't be thrown in the slammer for contempt. This was Take-Two Games's lawyers filing a motion to ASK the judge to do that. IMHO, it's a bit tacky, but then this *is* Jack Thompson they're asking it about, so he's not in any position to take the high road here.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Non-elected position having no checks and balances? Gee, where have we heard this before?
a) The judge in this case has been elected.
b) The "check" on this is immediate appeal to an appellate court, which frequently throw out contempt findings.
c) Judges in Florida can be impeached; another check.