Analysis of the contempt power of courts indicates that the claimed differences between civil and criminal contempts are more apparent than real in addition, the meaning and requirements of due process have steadily grown under the influence of modern societal perceptions of the need to equalize the context between citizen and government. The reasonable-doubt standard of proof in one of the due process requirements in the criminal sphere. It was developed as a procedural device to minimize the risk of erroneous decisions and tragic consequences. This standard also acts to bias fact-finding in favor of the innocent and to promote public confidence in the accuracy of judicial proceedings. The protection afforded by the reasonable-doubt rule should therefore extend to all civil contempt proceedings that involve a realistic likelihood of the deprivation of an individual's liberty. Such an approach demonstrates that the threat of incarceration is as real in civil as in criminal contempt cases and exposes the judicially created myth that civil contemnors are free agents who will readily respond to the pressures of coercive confinement. Thus, courts should promptly take the corrective measures needed to adopt this standard. 281 footnotes.