Unless he is INCAPABLE of doing so.

(Oh, and the people in Gitmo could have ben lawfully excuted, according to the good old Genva Convntion, instead of being held at all. I find almost anything short of outright torture to be an IMPROVMENT in our treatment of them, over and above the call of duty. Three square meals a day, NO sleep deprivation of any kind, free medical care better than most Americans get or can afford, guaranteed prayer time 5 times a day… remind me again how bad we’re treating them?)

That is assuming that he’s lying. From what I understand of the case, he claims he can’t get the assets his wife claims he is hiding. If he really can’t get them, then he has no way to get himself out of jail. Don’t we have some kind of presumption of innocent until proven guilty? And even if the judge really does believe the wife and thinks the husband is lying, isn’t he deserving of a trial by a jury of his peers? Because otherwise, he hasn’t gotten that opportunity.

Michael, the difference between this and Guantanamo is that in a civil contempt proceeding, the prisoner has the keys to the prison. He can get himself out at any time (unlike the people at Gitmo) by simply obeying the court order.

So, how is this any more constitutional than holding people in Gitmo without charges?

As to the substance of the issue, it’s hard to find those hidden assets. Vindictive spouses go to great lengths to hide them. And sometimes, the hate of the one spouse for the other is so intense that one might just be willing to spend 11 years in jail rather than think of her (or him) out joyriding in the Alfa Romeo bought on your dime with a new significant other. Remember the doctor in Manhattan who blew up a building — and himself — rather than turn it over?

I personally think the divorce laws are a little outdated with respect to asset division. If it’s demanded that the sexes are equal, seems they should also be expected to fend for themselves post-divorce. But because it’s usually men who bear the brunt of this unfairness, don’t expect to see reform soon. Also, it’s usually that asset division that pays the divorce lawyers’ bills.

Criminal contempt means the judge throws you in jail to punish you for something you did to subvert justice. You get sentenced to a finite amount of time.

Civil contempt, on the other hand, is a way for the court to get you to do something that it has ordered you to do, like give testimony. There’s no strict time limit on how long you can be jailed for civil contempt, though I’m sure state laws vary. For example, under federal law, if you refuse to testify before a grand jury, you can only be imprisoned as long as the grand jury is open (because once the grand jury is done, there’s no point in coercing you to testify).

11 years seems pretty extreme, though. I wonder what steps he’s taken to get released.