🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Oct16.233931.6703@sfu.ca>,
Barry Mosher <bmosher@fraser.sfu.ca> wrote:
>
>> The actions of blockading the road may have been civil contempt, but
>> the actions of violation a court order was criminal contempt.
>
>There are certainly laws regarding blocking roads but they do not imply
>civil contempt.  The judge has said he ruled them in criminal contempt of 
>court because they wanted to sought to put the court in disreput.  

In order to be convicted of criminal contempt, you must have violated
an injunction issued by a court.

What happened here was that: when the protesters first blocked the
road, the logging companies got a court order requiring them to
let the trucks pass.  The demonstraters chose to ignore that order,
and after a few weeks of waiting to see if they'd go away of their
own accord, the police came in and arrested them for contempt.

The demonstraters knew full well they were breaking the law when
they ignored the court order.  They just gambled that they'd get
off with a slap on the wrist.  They guessed wrong.

>I wish the court would issue an order against stealing cars, using drugs,
>and evading taxes.  Actually, I don't think the court should have such
>wide powers  - it can be abused you know :)

If you don't like an injunction, you can appeal it.  Just ignoring
it, however, is a very bad idea.  I hope the protestors won't make
that mistake again.

>>Those who violate a court order should know what the penalties are and
>>consider the consequences.
>
>>The penalties imposed were a long way from the maximum penalties.
>
>What is the maximum?  Please answer this.

I've seen six month sentences for criminal contempt.  You can be
imprisoned on an open-ended basis for refusing to comply with a court 
order (where the imprisonment is coercive not punative).  In those
cases, you get out of jail the day you comply.  

(There was an American doctor named Elizabeth Morgan who was imprisoned
in DC for two years for refusing to let her ex-husband have visits with
their child.  It was common for mafioso to be jailed for years for
refusing to testify to a grand jury.)

>Why should the next sentences be harsher?  Did they do it twice?  Did they
>do it after the conviction and sentencing of the others?  No.  What is your
>reasoning here?

People who commit the same crime twice tend to be punished more
severely than first offeners.  Also, the first batch may have deluded
themselves into believing that they were only committing "jaywalking",
where the next batch will know better.