Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − + + + + +
Judges may prefer civil contempt because it enables them to avoid a trial by jury for the subject of the order, with the risk that a jury may hold against the judge's order.
Civil contempt is a ruling of contempt in connection with a civil court proceeding, as opposed to a criminal one. As held by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]:
Civil contempt has the purpose of coercing compliance with an order by the court, or to compensate a party in whose favor the breached order was issued. Civil contempt is typically associated with a civil court proceeding, as opposed to a criminal one. Generally, the civil contempt disappears if and when the individual (or corporation) complies with the judge's order.
Judges may prefer civil contempt because it enables them to avoid a trial by jury for the subject of the order, with the risk that a jury may hold against the judge's order.
As held by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]:
{{cquote|civil sanctions, or those penalties designed to compel future compliance with a court order, are considered to be coercive and avoidable through obedience, and thus may be imposed in an ordinary civil proceeding upon notice and an opportunity to be heard. Neither a jury trial nor proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.}}
{{cquote|civil sanctions, or those penalties designed to compel future compliance with a court order, are considered to be coercive and avoidable through obedience, and thus may be imposed in an ordinary civil proceeding upon notice and an opportunity to be heard. Neither a jury trial nor proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.}}
''[[Int'l Union v. Bagwell]]'', 114 S. Ct. 2552, 2557 (1994).
''[[Int'l Union v. Bagwell]]'', 114 S. Ct. 2552, 2557 (1994).