"Contempt of court" isn't supposed to refer to contempt of the judge, though. It's supposed to refer to contempt for the mechanism of a trial: not respecting the time or the (legally-required) duties of anyone there, basically making it impossible to go on with the work of the court system. A lawyer attempting to "filibuster" a jury into agreeing with them, for example, would be in contempt of court for wasting the jurors' time.
The "contempt of court" charge basically serves as a court-private time-out box to send people to whenever they can't handle being in court, until they learn to stop, erm, "blocking the cooperative event queue from pumping messages."
It's not that the charge has to be indefinite—but it has to be capable of sticking as long as the trial's progress is halted. The charge should definitely cease to apply if the trial manages to resume through some other route—and especially if it manages to conclude.
Remember, "contempt of court" isn't about malfeasance, either. Experts who lie on the stand are not in contempt. Lawyers who introduce non-cross-examined evidence are not in contempt. Random audience members getting up and saying things during court are not in contempt. It's only when one of these things causes the trial mechanism to grind to a halt, and then the person refuses to yield to let the trial resume, that they are in contempt. It's a process-control mechanism, and in that respect, it's quite necessary.
(That's not to say it can't be abused—especially in smaller courts in non-jury trials. But it has a well-defined good usage, and can't really be redefined without losing that usage.)
The "contempt of court" charge basically serves as a court-private time-out box to send people to whenever they can't handle being in court, until they learn to stop, erm, "blocking the cooperative event queue from pumping messages."
It's not that the charge has to be indefinite—but it has to be capable of sticking as long as the trial's progress is halted. The charge should definitely cease to apply if the trial manages to resume through some other route—and especially if it manages to conclude.
Remember, "contempt of court" isn't about malfeasance, either. Experts who lie on the stand are not in contempt. Lawyers who introduce non-cross-examined evidence are not in contempt. Random audience members getting up and saying things during court are not in contempt. It's only when one of these things causes the trial mechanism to grind to a halt, and then the person refuses to yield to let the trial resume, that they are in contempt. It's a process-control mechanism, and in that respect, it's quite necessary.
(That's not to say it can't be abused—especially in smaller courts in non-jury trials. But it has a well-defined good usage, and can't really be redefined without losing that usage.)