> Does this mean you support punishment for offenses not before the court? That would be extraordinarily dangerous, IMO.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding your question. Punishment for offenses not before the Court happens all the time. Every time somebody gets fired from their job, for example. Every time a parent spanks their kid. Or in this case, where the brat wasn’t allowed to run for Student Government
I certainly support that, and I can’t see how it sets a dangerous precedent.
Am I misunderstanding it?
The issue in this case was whether the school's punishment was correct. The student did not say or display the offensive words in the court room. But your post indicated that the judge should have used the sanction of a contempt citation to force the student to apologize for behavior that occurred far away from the class room.
Contempt of court is supposed to be reserved for acts that take place in the courtroom, or pursuant to the case (like ignoring a subpoena).
I read your paragraph as supporting the use of contempt to punish the act that began the court case, despite the fact that punishment had already been imposed, and that the subject act was not before the court - only the previous punishment arising from the act.
Does that halp explain my question?