Judicial Vigilantism: Inherent Judicial Authority to Appoint Contempt Prosecutors in Young v. United States ex reI Vuitton Et Fils S.A (original) (raw)
Related papers
Washington University Law Review, 1992
The contempt power traditionally has been termed an "inherent" power of the court. Id. at 198 n.2 (citing 4 WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND 286-87 (1783) ("laws without a competent authority to secure their administration from disobedience and contempt would be vain and nugatory. A power, therefore... to supress such contempts by an immediate attachment of the offender results from the first principles of judicial establishments, and must be an inseparable attendant upon every superior tribunal.")). In addition, numerous court rules and some state and federal statutes authorize contempt sanctions of a certain length and type for specific infractions.
Contempt of Court in the Perspective of Criminal Law Enforcement
Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Social Science, Humanities, Education and Society Development, ICONS 2020, 30 November, Tegal, Indonesia, 2021
The latest Draft Criminal Code (RKUHP) dated August 28, 2019 sets out the Contempt of Court in Article 281, that any individual who does not abide by court order or judicial decree issued for the purpose of judicial process, behaves disrespectfully towards judge or the court or attacks judge's integrity or impartiality in court hearing, or unlawfully records, directly publicizes, or allows publication of anything which may affect judge's impartiality in court hearing is subject to criminal imprisonment for maximum 1 year or criminal fine for maximum Rp10,000,000.-Based on the mandate of Act Number 5 of 2004 on the Amendment to Supreme Court Act Number 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court, Contempt of Court should be set forth in independent Law and Regulation so as not to cause turmoil in the community as the result of criminalization in criminal judicial process.Problems resulted from regulation of Contempt of Court on judicial process are deemed to restrict the rights of law enforcers such as advocates and other justice seekers. When a law enforcer is criticizing the course of a hearing process, it may be categorized into Contempt of Court pursuant to Article 281 RKUHP.
Is the Contempt Power Obsolete
Dickinson Law Review, 2023
Contempt power has been with us for as long as we've had courts in this country. Through summary contempt proceedings, judges may imprison any person they deem insufficiently respectful to the authority of the court-with significantly less due process than a person would be entitled to under any other criminal offense. In theory, this is necessary to maintain order in the court. But in practice, summary contempt power is serially and seriously abused. Judges use incarceration to deal with piddling offenses or for no real reason at all. This Article argues that the concept of allowing judges nearly unbridled discretion to jail people for rudeness is outdated and should be reformed.
Brawijaya Law Journal
In Indonesia, many cases that occur related to contempt of court and law enforcement have occurred. The issue of Contempt of Court in Indonesia is a problem that is both interesting and complicated in its conception and regulation. Until now, in Indonesia, no provisions specifically regulating the Contempt of Court institutions. This completed study uses a normative juridical research method that prioritizes secondary data. This research addressing the legislation governing the Contempt of Court specifically until now still does not yet exist. However, the general arrangement has happened in the Criminal Code. Contempt of Court can occur both in the courtroom and outside the trial both in criminal, civil and industrial relations cases. Increasingly expanding various actions, which can be categorizing as contempt of court in Indonesia, it is necessary to arrange Contempt of Court in the form of separate rules
ALTHOUGH CONGRESS has been generally regarded as judge of the appropriate procedure to be used in conducti investigations,1 the courts have unfailingly asserted that there are li to the use of investigatory processes.2 Prior to 1936, the fe courts were concerned with setting up the broad jurisdictional b within which the fact-finding process might be carried on.3 only during the past fifteen years that judges have been called to interpret certain "fringe areas" of the law where the investig power has come directly in conflict with a constitutional rig
Contempt of Court: Some Considerations for Weighting Criminal Sanctions
Scholars International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice
Increasingly expanding various actions that have been categorised as contempt of court, which threaten the authority of the court, it is necessary to regulate. The research method used is the normative legal method using statute, case, and conceptual approaches. This research is a legal study based on norms in force related to the contempt of court in existing regulations. The results show that all forms of actions that, in principle, disrupt safety, psychological and physical calm both inside and outside the trial, can be categorized as contempt of court. Although contempt of court has not been regulated clearly and firmly in statutory regulation many events can be classified as contempt of court. The scope of contempt of court in the justice system in Indonesia is very broad. The weighting of criminal sanctions is imposed based on the category of the seriousness of the crime committed by the defendant. Criminal weighting can be given if a crime fulfils special elements. Considerin...
Congressional Update, 2017
Congress's contempt power is the means by which Congress responds to certain acts that in its view obstruct the legislative process. Contempt may be used either to coerce compliance, to punish the contemnor, and/or to remove the obstruction. Although arguably any action that directly obstructs the effort of Congress to exercise its constitutional powers may constitute a contempt, in recent times the contempt power has most often been employed in response to noncompliance with a duly issued congressional subpoena-whether in the form of a refusal to appear before a committee for purposes of providing testimony, or a refusal to produce requested documents.