I agree, but these are criminal offenses. It doesn’t matter if we suddenly decide to call them “civil”, they meet the definition of criminal prosecutions. You can call a giraffe an antelope, but that does not make it so.
There's no "suddenly" involved here. Not in the least. For hundreds of years in common law jurisdictions, judges have had the unilateral authority to jail a person who is in civil contempt of court. Neither jury nor "prosecution" need be involved.
Recent (in)famous examples of judge-ordered detention for civil contempt have included (a) the jailing of Bill Clinton's girl-buddy, Susan McDougall, during the Whitewater investigation; and (b) the similar detention of NY Times reporter, Judith Miller, during the Plame-Wilson contre-temps.
You can maintain as long as you want that civil imprisonment for contempt is a criminal prosecution. But you're basically butting your head against a brick wall. All the complaining in the world is not going to change the crystal-clear and long-running distinction in common law between civil contempt and the criminal law.