When in court. Never disrespect the Judge. Ever.

When in court. Never disrespect the Judge. Ever.

This moron was in for a minor drug charge. But she pissed the judge off by being uppity. Word to the wise, when you are in court you should address the judge as your honour and don’t even look at him/her sideways. Or shit can get nasty real quick like this idiot found out.

Story here.

Share This

About the author

Pirate is a man without reason, sanity or mercy. He once saw a crab at a beach.

View all articles by Pirate


  1. Scythe

    And the real lesson? Some judges apparently feel free to assign punishment that has nothing to do with the nature of the crime or actual justice, and everything to with getting their feelings hurt.

    Her first-ever court appearance and for possession of a prescription drug. Not assault, or even possession of pot or cocaine – those are actual illegal drugs. Her bond was doubled because she didn’t take a minor crime seriously.

    And then 30 days in prison. For giving an old man the finger and swearing at him.

    Let me just say that again.

    30 days. In prison. For flipping the bird, expelling air from her lungs and using her vocal cords to produce sound vibrations.

    I wouldn’t respect the prick either. It’s people like him that cause the rest of society to think the legal system is a joke.

      1. Scythe

        Funny, if you tried to tell people in the USA that ‘contempt of court’ is remarkably similar to ‘lese majesty’ law, imagine the reaction.

        Enforcing an often-false veneer of respect towards an authority figure with the threat of legal punishment and incarceration? Don’t see a lot of difference between the two, personally.

        1. Leonid

          You’d see a lot of difference between the two if it wasn’t an innocent-looking young girl twirling her hair but some tattooed redneck swearing and telling the judge he’d murder him and his family.

          1. That_Bloke

            Well yeah, he’d have made death threats.
            That comparison would be more valid if he twirled his mullet & flipped the bird.

  2. Leonid

    And that’s why we have these contempt of law laws and why they’re applied.

    The reason why they’re applied to this girl follows the same logic as Zero Tolerance Policing – the idea being that you punish everyone for the slightest infringements to dissuade those who actually do mean harm, from trying.

    Dunno if it works or not, but there are damned good reasons to maintain contempt of court laws, all flippancy aside.

    1. Scythe

      Zero Tolerance Policing doesn’t work for the same reason that mandatory sentencing doesn’t work. Because it has nothing to do with justice, and everything to do with fear and security theater.

      You know how I know? Because ‘contempt of court’ is nothing. They used to cut people’s hands off for theft, and in some parts of the world they still do. The first member of my family to arrive in Australia was stuffed in a ship and sent halfway around the world from Ireland over a century ago to spend her life in a penal colony because she stole a loaf of bread. A 20-year sentence for theft of a loaf of bread. I have copies of the records.

      And you know what? Amateur criminals and desperate people still stole things, and the professional criminals still knew that their chances of being both caught and convicted were minimal. Just like today.

      Why exactly does it matter if someone holds the court in contempt? Unless their actions are actually impeding the process of the court (which this girl’s weren’t), then who cares? It’s not like the person in the dock is going to be able to get up and walk away if they don’t respect the court. The people in uniforms with firearms generally stop that kind of thing.

      If you respect the court, then you respect it. If you don’t, then you’re still going to get tried and convicted anyway. If judges use these laws to punish people who annoy them or don’t bow down and quietly submit, rather than actually using them for their intended purpose (to enable the court to function), then all they’re doing is eroding actual respect for the legal system – the exact opposite of the laws’ supposed purpose.

        1. Scythe

          It’s relevant in the sense that both are deterrence punishments – they are disproportionate to the severity crime, and neither have anything to do with justice.

          Why exactly do people need to be ‘forcred to respect they authority of the court’? Whether the respect it or not is irrelevant – they’re still going to be tried and/or convicted, their attitude while in court doesn’t matter.

          Contempt of court should be used to matintain the functioning of the court. Not to punish people because you don’t like their attitude.

          1. Leonid

            It has nothing to do with liking or not liking their attitude.

            In the US you’re supposed to receive a warning before you’re given a punishment – that video above does not show what that girl did.

            The reason you need to respect the authority of the court is if for example in a civil matter, you refuse to pay a party to whom you lost, contempt of a court’s judgement/authority will net you jail time.

            If you interrupt the court’s proceedings continuously and needlessly or fail to answer questions, you’re wasting the court’s time. Wasting the court’s time means less cases heard, more people stuck in holding cells and more costs to the government.

  3. Phenyx

    However petty the crime and whether she deserved it or not, it just makes sense NOT to piss off the judge or use bad language or flip a bird within line of sight. She’s an arrogant little twerp who pissed off another arrogant little twerp. Unfortunately for her, he had way more more power and used it as an example.

  4. Scythe

    We’ve hit the nested comment limit, so I can’t reply directly, but did you actually read what I wrote, Leonid?

    A couple of things:

    * Refusing to pay a party as per a court order is indirect contempt of court, not direct – different to what happened here.

    * Second, I specifically said: “Contempt of court should be used to matintain the functioning of the court. Not to punish people because you don’t like their attitude.” You keep repeating the same thing I already said as if it’s a counterpoint.

    1. Leonid

      I repeat for your benefit:

      You saw the last bit in the video. You didn’t see the warning which must contain specific reference to being charged with contempt. This may have been the last straw – he gave her more leeway than what the law says he must give.

        1. Leonid

          Instead of being flippant, why don’t you think this through for a minute.

          This is in Miami. Miami jails are overcrowded. Across the States, prison reform is being discussed and created with citizens suing the prison system and states overhauling aspects of legislation. Judges do not want to send people to jail for minor misdemeanors. And the case load is incredibly heavy.

          You only see the last bit in there – you don’t see the full behaviour of the girl, nor the warnings from the judge. She could have defecated on the floor of the courthouse and you wouldn’t know it.

          You don’t get 30 days in jail because of attitude, nor because of one action.

          1. Scythe

            Did you actually read the story? There is absolutely no mention anywhere of her doing anything else but what has already been described.

            You’ve made a whole chain of assumptions to justify and defend the end result, and based those assumptions on no evidence whatsoever. All the facts known point to a judge getting pissy over her being a bitch and then abusing his power to ‘teach her a lesson’.

  5. Leonid

    You mean the story on news.com.au which is nothing more than a transcript of a youtube video which clearly doesn’t show the whole procedure?

    I’ve made no assumptions except those that are evident – we haven’t seen the whole thing. Just the bit uploaded to youtube which news.com.au journalists dissected for you.

    1. Scythe


      “Judges do not want to send people to jail for minor misdemeanors.”

      You don’t consider basing a large part of your argument on an unverified universal statement about ‘what judges want’ to be an assumption?

      1. Leonid

        Don’t assume that’s an assumption. In May 2011, the Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its prison population by 30,000 because they were jailing too many people.

        Florida is currently building 8 or 9 “re-entry centres” which are alternatives to prisons with educational programs for non-violent minor offenders to keep them out of jails.

        America has too many people in jail. That is a fact. In the last decade they’ve been trying to do something, anything, about it.

        1. Scythe

          Of course it’s an assumption. The fact that America’s jails are overflowing is a fact, it’s well-documented and supported by clear numbers.

          The statement “Judges do not want to send people to jail for minor misdemeanors” is a blanket statement about a vastly disparate group of people, and is unsupported by anything other than your personal opinion. Hence – an assumption. Which you then proceeded to draw further conclusions from.

          And in case one wasn’t enough:

          “You don’t get 30 days in jail because of attitude, nor because of one action.”

          Also an assumption. And, absent the currently non-existent further detail exonerating the judge that you insist must exist, one that appears to be directly contradicted by the video evidence that sparked this whole discussion.

Leave a Reply