|
|
|
|
|
by abduhl
93 days ago
|
|
This is a bit hyperbolic and the exaggerations really undermine what I think is your broader point (that there is rarely recourse when you're held for short to moderate amounts of time). It is hard for me to believe that someone was held for 16 years on civil contempt without due process or that someone was held for half a year without due process after being deemed dangerous. The reason that is hard for me to believe is that the due process is implicit in the action you describe. Civil contempt is from a judge which implies that you're already in court - that's due process. Someone being labeled "dangerous" implies that a finding was made by a neutral party - that's due process. Just because you disagree with the outcome doesn't mean that due process wasn't given. |
|
A judge should have to recuse themselves if they are acting as witness to the supposed infraction.