Justice Blackmun

delivered the opinion of the Court.

We are called upon once again to consider the distinction between civil and criminal contempt. Specifically, we address whether contempt fines levied against a union for violations of a labor injunction are coercive civil fines, or are criminal fines that constitutionally could be imposed only through a jury trial. We conclude that the fines are criminal and, accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Court of Virginia.

I

Petitioners, the International Union, United Mine Workers of America, and United Mine Workers of America, District 28 (collectively, the union), engaged in a protracted labor dispute with the Clinchfield Coal Company and Sea “B” Mining Company (collectively, the companies) over alleged unfair labor practices. In April 1989, the companies filed suit in the Circuit Court of Russell County, Virginia, to enjoin the union from conducting unlawful strike-related activities. The trial court entered an injunction which, as later amended, prohibited the union and its members from, among other things, obstructing ingress and egress to company facilities, throwing objects at and physically threatening company employees, placing tire-damaging “jackrocks” on roads used by company vehicles, and picketing with more than a specified number of people at designated sites. The court additionally ordered the union to take all steps necessary to ensure compliance with the injunction, to place su*824pervisors at picket sites, and to report all violations to the court. App. to Pet. for Cert. 114a-116a.

On May 18, 1989, the trial court held a contempt hearing and found that petitioners had committed 72 violations of the injunction. After fining the union $642,000 for its disobedience,1 the court announced that it would fine the union $100,000 for any future violent breach of the injunction and $20,000 for any future nonviolent infraction, “such as exceeding picket numbers, [or] blocking entrances or exits.” Id., at Illa. The court early stated that its purpose was to “impost] prospective civil fines[,] the payment of which would only be required if it were shown the defendants disobeyed the Court’s orders.” Id., at 40a.

In seven subsequent contempt hearings held between June and December 1989, the court found the union in contempt for more than 400 separate violations of the injunction, many of them violent. Based on the court’s stated “intention that these fines are civil and coercive,” id., at 104a, each contempt hearing was conducted as a civil proceeding before the trial judge, in which the parties conducted discovery, introduced evidence, and called and cross-examined witnesses. The trial court required that contumacious acts be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but did not afford the union a right to jury trial.

As a result of these contempt proceedings, the court levied over $64 million in fines against the union, approximately $12 million of which was ordered payable to the companies. Because the union objected to payment of any fines to the companies and in light of the law enforcement burdens posed by the strike, the court ordered that the remaining roughly $52 million in fines be paid to the Commonwealth of Virginia and Russell and Dickenson Counties, “the two counties most heavily affected by the unlawful activity.” Id., at 44a-45a.

*825While appeals from the contempt orders were pending, the union and the companies settled the underlying labor dispute, agreed to vacate the contempt fines, and jointly moved to dismiss the case. A special mediator representing the Secretary of Labor, App. 48-49, and the governments of Russell and Dickenson Counties, id., at 48 and 54, supported the parties’ motion to vacate the outstanding fines. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, dissolved the injunction, and vacated the $12 million in fines payable to the companies. After reiterating its belief that the remaining $52 million owed to the counties and the Commonwealth were coercive, civil fines, the trial court refused to vacate these fines, concluding they were “payable in effect to the public.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 47a.

The companies withdrew as parties in light of the settlement and declined to seek further enforcement of the outstanding contempt fines. Because the Commonwealth Attorneys of Russell and Dickenson Counties also had asked to be disqualified from the case, the court appointed respondent John L. Bagwell to act as Special Commissioner to collect the unpaid contempt fines on behalf of the counties and the Commonwealth. Id., at 48a.

The Court of Appeals of Virginia reversed and ordered that the contempt fines be vacated pursuant to the settlement agreement. Assuming for the purposes of argument that the fines were civil, the court concluded that “civil contempt fines imposed during or as a part of a civil proceeding between private parties are settled when the underlying litigation is settled by the parties and the court is without discretion to refuse to vacate such fines.” Mine Workers v. Clinchfield Coal Co., 12 Va. App. 123, 133, 402 S. E. 2d 899, 905 (1991).

On consolidated appeals, the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed. The court held that whether coercive, civil contempt sanctions could be settled by private parties was a question of state law, arid that Virginia public policy disfa*826vored such a rule, “if the dignity of the law and public respect for the judiciary are to be maintained.” 244 Va. 463, 478, 423 S. E. 2d 349, 358 (1992). The court also rejected petitioners’ contention that the outstanding fines were criminal and could not be imposed absent a criminal trial. Because the trial court’s prospective fine schedule was intended to coerce compliance with the injunction and the union could avoid the fines through obedience, the court reasoned, the fines were civil and coercive and properly imposed in civil proceedings:

“When a court orders a defendant to perform an affirmative act and provides that the defendant shall be fined a fixed amount for each day he refuses to comply, the defendant has control of his destiny. The same is true with respect to the court’s orders in the present case. A prospective fine schedule was established solely for the purpose of coercing the Union to refrain from engaging in certain conduct. Consequently, the Union controlled its own fate.” Id., at 477, 423 S. E. 2d, at 357.

This Court granted certiorari. 508 U. S. 949 (1993).

II

A

“Criminal contempt is a crime in the ordinary sense,” Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 194, 201 (1968), and “criminal penalties may not be imposed on someone who has not been afforded the protections that the Constitution requires of such criminal proceedings,” Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U. S. 624, 632 (1988). See In re Bradley, 318 U. S. 50 (1943) (double jeopardy); Cooke v. United States, 267 U. S. 517, 537 (1925) (rights to notice of charges, assistance of counsel, summary process, and to present a defense); Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 444 (1911) (privilege against self-incrimination, right to proof beyond a reasonable doubt). For “serious” criminal contempts involving impris*827onment of more than six months, these protections include the right to jury trial. Bloom, 391 U. S., at 199; see also Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U. S. 488, 495 (1974). In contrast, civil contempt sanctions, or those penalties designed to compel future compliance with a court order, are considered to be coercive and avoidable through obedience, and thus may be imposed in an ordinary civil proceeding upon notice and an opportunity to be heard. Neither a jury trial nor proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.2

Although the procedural contours of the two forms of contempt are well established, the distinguishing characteristics of civil versus criminal contempts are somewhat less clear.3 In the leading early case addressing this issue in the context of imprisonment, Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S., at 441, the Court emphasized that whether á contempt is civil or criminal turns on the “character and purpose” of the sanction involved. Thus, a contempt sanction is considered civil if it “is remedial, and for the benefit of the eom*828plainant. But if it is for criminal contempt the sentence is punitive, to vindicate the authority of the court.” Ibid.

As Gompers recognized, however, the stated purposes of a contempt sanction alone cannot be determinative. Id., at 443. “[W]hen a court imposes fines and punishments on a contemnor, it is not only vindicating its legal authority to enter the initial court order, but it also is seeking to give effect to the law’s purpose of modifying the contemnor’s behavior to conform to the terms required in the order.” Hicks, 485 U. S., at 635. Most contempt sanctions, like most criminal punishments, to some extent punish a prior offense as well as coerce an offender’s future obedience. The Hicks Court accordingly held that conclusions about the civil or criminal nature of a contempt sanction are properly drawn, not from “the subjective intent of a State’s laws and its courts,” ibid., but “from an examination of the character of the relief itself,” id., at 636.

The paradigmatic coercive, civil contempt sanction, as set forth in Gompers, involves confining a contemnor indefinitely until he complies with an affirmative command such as an order “to pay alimony, or to surrender property ordered to be turned over to a receiver, or to make a conveyance.” 221 U. S., at 442; see also McCrone v. United States, 307 U. S. 61, 64 (1939) (failure to testify). Imprisonment for a fixed term similarly is coercive when the contemnor is given the option of earlier release if he complies. Shillitani v. United States, 384 U. S. 364, 370, n. 6 (1966) (upholding as civil “a determinate [2-year] sentence which includes a purge clause”). In these circumstances, the contemnor is able to purge the contempt and obtain his release by committing an affirmative act, and thus “‘carries the keys of his prison in his own pocket.’ ” Gompers, 221 U. S., at 442, quoting In re Nevitt, 117 F. 448, 451 (CA8 1902).

By contrast, a fixed sentence of imprisonment is punitive and criminal if it is imposed retrospectively for a “completed act of disobedience,” Gompers, 221 U. S., at 443, such that *829the contemnor cannot avoid or abbreviate the confinement through later compliance. Thus, the Gompers Court concluded that a 12-month sentence imposed on Samuel Gompers for violating an antiboycott injunction was criminal. When a contempt involves the prior conduct of an isolated, prohibited act, the resulting sanction has no coercive effect. “[T]he defendant is furnished no key, and he cannot shorten the term by promising not to repeat the offense.” Id., at 442.

This dichotomy between coercive and punitive imprisonment has been extended to the fine context. A contempt fine accordingly is considered civil and remedial if it either “coerce[s] the defendant into compliance with the court’s order, [or] . . . compensate^] the complainant for losses sustained.” United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 303-304 (1947). Where a fine is not compensatory, it is civil only if the contemnor is afforded an opportunity to purge. See Penfield Co. of Cal. v. SEC, 330 U. S. 585, 590 (1947). Thus, a “flat, unconditional fine” totaling even as little as $50 announced after a finding of contempt is criminal if the contemnor has no subsequent opportunity to reduce or avoid the fine through compliance. Id., at 588.

A close analogy to coercive imprisonment is a per diem fine imposed for each day a contemnor fails to comply with an affirmative court order. Like civil imprisonment, such fines exert a constant coercive pressure, and once the jural command is obeyed, the future, indefinite, daily fines are purged. Less comfortable is the analogy between coercive imprisonment and suspended, determinate fines. In this Court’s sole prior decision squarely addressing the judicial power to impose coercive civil contempt fines, Mine Workers, supra, it held that fixed fines also may be considered purgable and civil when imposed and suspended pending future compliance. See also Penfield, 330 U. S., at 590 (“One who is fined, unless by a day certain he [complies,] has it in his power to avoid any penalty”); but see Hicks, 485 U. S., at 639, *830and n. 11 (suspended or probationary sentence is criminal). Mine Workers involved a $3,500,000 fine imposed against the union for nationwide post-World War II strike activities. Finding that the determinate fine was both criminal and excessive, the Court reduced the sanction to a flat criminal fine of $700,000. The Court then imposed and suspended the remaining $2,800,000 as a coercive civil fine, conditioned on the union’s ability to purge the fine through full, timely compliance with the trial court’s order.4 The Court concluded, in light of this purge clause, that the civil fine operated as “a coercive imposition upon the defendant union to compel obedience with the court’s outstanding order.” 330 U. S., at 307.

This Court has not revisited the issue of coercive civil contempt fines addressed in Mine Workers. Since that decision, the Court has erected substantial procedural protections in other areas of contempt law, such as criminal contempts, e. g., Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 194 (1968), and summary contempts, e. g., Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U. S. 488 (1974); Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U. S. 506, 513 (1974); Johnson v. Mississippi, 403 U. S. 212 (1971); In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257, 275 (1948). Lower federal courts and state courts such as the trial court here nevertheless have relied on Mine Workers to authorize a relatively unlimited judicial power to impose noncompensatory civil contempt fines.

B

Underlying the somewhat elusive distinction between civil and criminal contempt fines, and the ultimate question posed *831in this case, is what procedural protections are due before any particular contempt penalty may be imposed. Because civil contempt sanctions are viewed as nonpunitive and avoidable, fewer procedural protections for such sanctions have been required. To the extent that such contempts take on a punitive character, however, and are not justified by other considerations central to the contempt power, criminal procedural protections may be in order.

The traditional justification for the relative breadth of the contempt power has been necessity: Courts independently must be vested with “power to impose silence, respect, and decorum, in their presence, and submission to their lawful mandates, and ... to preserve themselves and their officers from the approach and insults of pollution.” Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 227 (1821). Courts thus have embraced an inherent contempt authority, see Gompers, 221 U. S., at 450; Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505, 510 (1874), as a power “necessary to the exercise of all others,” United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 34 (1812).

But the contempt power also uniquely is “‘liable to abuse.’ ” Bloom, 391 U. S., at 202, quoting Ex parte Terry, 128 U. S. 289, 313 (1888). Unlike most areas of law, where a legislature defines both the sanctionable conduct and the penalty to be imposed, civil contempt proceedings leave the offended judge solely responsible for identifying, prosecuting, adjudicating, and sanctioning the contumacious conduct. Contumacy “often strikes at the most vulnerable and human qualities of a judge’s temperament,” Bloom, 391 U. S., at 202, and its fusion of legislative, executive, and judicial powers “summons forth ... the prospect of ‘the most tyrannical licentiousness,’ ” Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S. A., 481 U. S. 787, 822 (1987) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment), quoting Anderson, 6 Wheat., at 228. Accordingly, “in [criminal] contempt cases an even more compelling argument can be made [than in ordinary criminal cases] for providing *832a right to jury trial as a protection against the arbitrary exercise of official power.” Bloom, 391 U. S., at 202.

Our jurisprudence in the contempt area has attempted to balance the competing concerns of necessity and potential arbitrariness by allowing a relatively unencumbered contempt power when its exercise is most essential, and requiring progressively greater procedural protections when other considerations come into play. The necessity justification for the contempt authority is at its pinnacle, of course, where contumacious conduct threatens a court’s immediate ability to conduct its proceedings, such as where a witness refuses to testify, or a party disrupts the court. See Young, 481 U. S., at 820-821 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment) (the judicial contempt power is a “power of self-defense,” limited to sanctioning “those who interfere with the orderly conduct of [court] business or disobey orders necessary to the conduct of that business”). Thus, petty, direct contempts in the presence of the court traditionally have been subject to summary adjudication, “to maintain order in the courtroom and the integrity of the trial process in the face of an ‘actual obstruction of justice.’” Codispoti v. Pennsylvania, 418 U. S., at 513, quoting In re McConnell, 370 U. S. 230, 236 (1962); cf. United States v. Wilson, 421 U. S. 309, 315-316 (1975); Harris v. United States, 382 U. S. 162, 164 (1965). In light of the court’s substantial interest in rapidly coercing compliance and restoring order, and because the contempt’s occurrence before the court reduces the need for extensive factfinding and the likelihood of an erroneous deprivation, summary proceedings have been tolerated.

Summary adjudication becomes less justifiable once a court leaves the realm of immediately sanctioned, petty direct contempts. If a court delays punishing a direct contempt until the completion of trial, for example, due process requires that the contemnor’s rights to notice and a hearing be respected. Taylor v. Hayes, 418 U. S. 488 (1974). There “it is much more difficult to argue that action without notice *833or hearing of any kind is necessary to preserve order and enable [the court] to proceed with its business,” id., at 498, particularly “in view of the heightened potential for abuse posed by the contempt power,” id., at 500; see also Harris v. United States, 382 U. S., at 164-165. Direct contempts also cannot be punished with serious criminal penalties absent the full protections of a criminal jury trial. Bloom, 391 U. S., at 210.

Still further procedural protections are afforded for con-tempts occurring out of court, where the considerations justifying expedited procedures do not pertain. Summary adjudication of indirect contempts is prohibited, e. g., Cooke v. United States, 267 U. S. 517, 534 (1925), and criminal contempt sanctions are entitled to full criminal process, e.g., Hicks, 485 U. S., at 632. Certain indirect contempts nevertheless are appropriate for imposition through civil proceedings. Contempts such as failure to comply with document discovery, for example, while occurring outside the court’s presence, impede the court’s ability to adjudicate the proceedings before it and thus touch upon the core justification for the contempt power. Courts traditionally have broad authority through means other than contempt — such as by striking pleadings, assessing costs, excluding evidence, and entering default judgment — to penalize a party’s failure to comply with the rules of conduct governing the litigation process. See, e. g., Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 11, 37. Such judicial sanctions never have been considered criminal, and the imposition of civil, coercive fines to police the litigation process appears consistent with this authority. Similarly, indirect contempts involving discrete, readily ascertainable acts, such as turning over a key or payment of a judgment, properly may be adjudicated through civil proceedings since the need for extensive, impartial factfinding is less pressing.

For a discrete category of indirect contempts, however, civil procedural protections may be insufficient. Contempts involving out-of-court disobedience to complex injunctions *834often require elaborate and reliable factfinding. Cf. Green v. United States, 356 U. S. 165, 217, n. 33 (1958) (Black, J., dissenting) (“Alleged contempts committed beyond the court’s presence where the judge has no personal knowledge of the material facts are especially suited for trial by jury. A hearing must be held, witnesses must be called, and evidence taken in any event. And often . . . crucial facts are in close dispute” (citation omitted)). Such contempts do not obstruct the court’s ability to adjudicate the proceedings before it, and the risk of erroneous deprivation from the lack of a neutral factfinder may be substantial. Id., at 214-215. Under these circumstances, criminal procedural protections such as the rights to counsel and proof beyond a reasonable doubt are both necessary and appropriate to protect the due process rights of parties and prevent the arbitrary exercise of judicial power.

C

In the instant case, neither any party nor any court of the Commonwealth has suggested that the challenged fines are compensatory. At no point did the trial court attempt to calibrate the fines to damages caused by the union’s contumacious activities or indicate that the fines were “to compensate the complainant for losses sustained.” Mine Workers, 330 U. S., at 303-304. The nonparty governments, in turn, never requested any compensation or presented any evidence regarding their injuries, never moved to intervene in the suit, and never actively defended the fines imposed. The issue before us accordingly is limited to whether these fines, despite their noncompensatory character, are coercive civil or criminal sanctions.

The parties propose two independent tests for determining whether the fines are civil or criminal. Petitioners argue that because the injunction primarily prohibited certain conduct rather than mandated affirmative acts, the sanctions are criminal. Respondents in turn urge that because the trial court established a prospective fine schedule that *835the union could avoid through compliance, the fines are civil in character.

Neither theory satisfactorily identifies those contempt fines that are criminal and thus must be imposed through the criminal process. Petitioners correctly note that Gompers suggests a possible dichotomy “between refusing to do an act commanded, — remedied by imprisonment until the party performs the required act; and doing an act forbidden, — punished by imprisonment for a definite term.” 221 U. S., at 443. The distinction between mandatory and prohibitory orders is easily applied in the classic contempt scenario, where contempt sanctions are used to enforce orders compelling or forbidding a single, discrete act. In such cases, orders commanding an affirmative act simply designate those actions that are capable of being coerced.

But the distinction between coercion of affirmative acts and punishment of prohibited conduct is difficult to apply when conduct that can recur is involved, or when an injunction contains both mandatory and prohibitory provisions. Moreover, in borderline cases injunctive provisions containing essentially the same command can be phrased either in mandatory or prohibitory terms. Under a literal application of petitioners’ theory, an injunction ordering the union: “Do not strike,” would appear to be prohibitory and criminal, while an injunction ordering the union: “Continue working,” would be mandatory and civil. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 8-9; Dobbs, Contempt of Court: A Survey, 56 Cornell L. Rev. 183, 239 (1971). In enforcing the present injunction, the trial court imposed fines without regard to the mandatory or prohibitory nature of the clause violated. Accordingly, even though a parsing of the injunction’s various provisions might support the classification of contempts such as rock throwing and placing tire-damaging “jackrocks” on roads as criminal and the refusal to place supervisors at picket sites as civil, the parties have not asked us to review the order in that manner. In a case like this involving an injunction that pre*836scribes a detailed code of conduct, it is more appropriate to identify the character of the entire decree. Cf. Hicks, 485 U. S., at 638, n. 10 (internal quotation marks omitted) (Where both civil and criminal relief is imposed “the criminal feature of the order is dominant and fixes its character for purposes of review”).

Despite respondents’ urging, we also are not persuaded that dispositive significance should be accorded to the fact that the trial court prospectively announced the sanctions it would impose. Had the trial court simply levied the fines after finding the union guilty of contempt, the resulting “determinate and unconditional” fines would be considered “solely and exclusively punitive.” Id., at 632-633 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Penfield Co. of Cal. v. SEC, 330 U. S. 585 (1947). Respondents nevertheless contend that the trial court’s announcement of a prospective fine schedule allowed the union to “avoid paying the fine[s] simply by performing the ... act required by the court’s order,” Hicks, 485 U. S., at 632, and thus transformed these fines into coercive, civil ones. Respondents maintain here, as the Virginia Supreme Court held below, that the trial court could have imposed a daily civil fine to coerce the union into compliance, and that a prospective fine schedule is indistinguishable from such a sanction.

Respondents’ argument highlights the difficulties encountered in parsing coercive civil and criminal contempt fines. The fines imposed here concededly are difficult to distinguish either from determinate, punitive fines or from initially suspended, civil fines. Ultimately, however, the fact that the trial court announced the fines before the contumacy, rather than after the fact, does not in itself justify respondents’ conclusion that the fines are civil or meaningfully distinguish these penalties from the ordinary criminal law. Due process traditionally requires that criminal laws provide prior notice both of the conduct to be prohibited and of the sanction to be imposed. The trial court here simply announced the pen*837alty — determinate fines of $20,000 or $100,000 per violation — that would be imposed for future contempts. The union’s ability to avoid the contempt fines was indistinguishable from the ability of any ordinary citizen to avoid a criminal sanction by conforming his behavior to the law. The fines are not coercive day fines, or even suspended fines, but are more closely analogous to fixed, determinate, retrospective criminal fines which petitioners had no opportunity to purge once imposed. We therefore decline to conclude that the mere fact that the sanctions were announced in advance rendered them coercive and civil as a matter of constitutional law.

Other considerations convince us that the fines challenged here are criminal. The union’s sanctionable conduct did not occur in the court’s presence or otherwise implicate the court’s ability to maintain order and adjudicate the proceedings before it. Nor did the union’s contumacy involve simple, affirmative acts, such as the paradigmatic civil con-tempts examined in Gompers. Instead, the Virginia trial court levied contempt fines for widespread, ongoing, out-of-court violations of a complex injunction. In so doing, the court effectively policed petitioners’ compliance with an entire code of conduct that the court itself had imposed. The union’s contumacy lasted many months and spanned a substantial portion of the State. The fines assessed were serious, totaling over $52 million.5 Under such circumstances, *838disinterested factfinding and evenhanded adjudication were essential, and petitioners were entitled to a criminal jury trial.

In reaching this conclusion, we recognize that this Court generally has deferred to a legislature’s determination whether a sanction is civil or criminal, see, e.g., United States v. Ward, 448 U. S. 242, 248 (1980); Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U. S. 391 (1938), and that “[w]hen a State’s proceedings are involved, state law provides strong guidance about whether or not the State is exercising its authority fin a non-punitive, noncriminal manner.’ ” Hicks, 485 U. S., at 631, quoting Allen v. Illinois, 478 U. S. 364, 368 (1986). We do not deviate from either tradition today. Where a single judge, rather than a legislature, declares a particular sanction to be civil or criminal, such deference is less appropriate. Cf. Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., ante, p. 753. Moreover, this Court has recognized that even for state proceedings, the label affixed to a contempt ultimately “will not be allowed to defeat the applicable protections of federal constitutional law.” Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U. S., at 631. We conclude that the serious contempt fines imposed here were criminal and constitutionally could not be imposed absent a jury trial.

Ill

Our decision conceded^ imposes some procedural burdens on courts’ ability to sanction widespread, indirect contempts of complex injunctions through noncompensatory fines. Our holding, however, leaves unaltered the longstanding authority of judges to adjudicate direct contempts summarily, and to enter broad compensatory awards for all contempts through civil proceedings. See, e. g., Sheet Metal Workers v. EEOC, 478 U. S. 421 (1986). Because the right to trial by *839jury applies only to serious criminal sanctions, courts still may impose noncompensatory, petty fines for contempts such as the present ones without conducting a jury trial. We also do not disturb a court’s ability to levy, albeit through the criminal contempt process, serious fines like those in this case.

Ultimately, whatever slight burden our holding may impose on the judicial contempt power cannot be controlling. The Court recognized more than a quarter century ago:

“We cannot say that the need to further respect for judges and courts is entitled to more consideration than the interest of the individual not be subjected to serious criminal punishment without the benefit of all the procedural protections worked out carefully over the years and deemed fundamental to our system of justice. Genuine respect, which alone can lend true dignity to our judicial establishment, will be engendered, not by the fear of unlimited authority, but by the firm administration of the law through those institutionalized procedures which have been worked out over the centuries.” Bloom, 391 U. S., at 208.

Where, as here, “a serious contempt is at issue, considerations of efficiency must give way to the more fundamental interest of ensuring the even-handed exercise of judicial power.” Id., at 209.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Virginia is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Justice Scalia,

concurring.

I join the Court’s opinion classifying the $52 million in contempt fines levied against petitioners as criminal. As the Court’s opinion demonstrates, our cases have employed a variety of not easily reconcilable tests for differentiating between civil and criminal contempts. Since all of those tests *840would yield the same result here, there is no need to decide which is the correct one — and a case so extreme on its facts is not the best case in which to make that decision. I wish to suggest, however, that when we come to making it, a careful examination of historical practice will ultimately yield the answer.

That one and the same person should be able to make the rule, to adjudicate its violation, and to assess its penalty is out of accord with our usual notions of fairness and separation of powers. See ante, at 831; Green v. United States, 356 U. S. 165, 198-199 (1958) (Black, J., dissenting); cf. Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U. S. 194, 202 (1968); Cooke v. United States, 267 U. S. 517, 539 (1925). And it is worse still for that person to conduct the adjudication without affording the protections usually given in criminal trials. Only the clearest of historical practice could establish that such a departure from the procedures that the Constitution normally requires is not a denial of due process of law. See Burnham v. Superior Court of Cal., County of Marin, 495 U. S. 604, 623-625 (1990); cf. Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg, ante, at 430-431.

At common law, contempts were divided into criminal con-tempts, in which a litigant was punished for an affront to the court by a fixed fine or period of incarceration; and civil contempts, in which an uncooperative litigant was incarcerated (and, in later cases, fined*) until he complied with a specific order of the court. See Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 441-444 (1911). Incarceration until compliance was a distinctive sanction, and sheds light upon the nature of the decrees enforced by civil contempt. That sanction makes sense only if the order requires performance *841of an identifiable act (or perhaps cessation of continuing performance of an identifiable act). A general prohibition for the future does not lend itself to enforcement through conditional incarceration, since no single act (or the cessation of no single act) can demonstrate compliance and justify release. One court has expressed the difference between criminal and civil contempts as follows: “Punishment in criminal contempt cannot undo or remedy the thing which has been done, but in civil contempt punishment remedies the disobedience.” In re Fox, 96 F. 2d 23, 25 (CA3 1938).

As one would expect from this, the orders that underlay civil contempt fines or incarceration were usually mandatory rather than prohibitory, see Gompers, supra, at 442, directing litigants to perform acts that would further the litigation (for example, turning over a document), or give effect to the court’s judgment (for example, executing a deed of conveyance). The latter category of order was particularly common, since the jurisdiction of equity courts was generally in personam rather than in rem, and the relief they decreed would almost always be a directive to an individual to perform an act with regard to property at issue. See 4 J. Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence §1433, pp. 3386-3388 (4th ed. 1919). The mandatory injunctions issued upon termination of litigation usually required “a single simple act.” H. McClintock, Principles of Equity § 15, pp. 32-33 (2d ed. 1948). Indeed, there was a “historical prejudice of the court of chancery against rendering decrees which called for more than a single affirmative act.” Id., § 61, at 160. And where specific performance of contracts was sought, it was the categorical rule that no decree would issue that required ongoing supervision. See, e. g., Marble Co. v. Ripley, 10 Wall. 339, 358-359 (1870); see also McClintock, supra, §61, at 160-161; 1 J. Story, Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence §778b, p. 782 (Redfield ed.; 10th ed. 1870). Compliance with these “single act” mandates could, in addition to being simple, be *842quick; and once it was achieved the contemnor’s relationship with the court came to an end, at least insofar as the subject of the order was concerned. Once the document was turned over or the land conveyed, the litigant’s obligation to the court, and the court’s coercive power over the litigant, ceased. See United States v. Mine Workers, 380 U. S. 258, 332 (1947) (Black, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The court did not engage in any ongoing supervision of the litigant’s conduct, nor did its order continue to regulate his behavior.

Even equitable decrees that were prohibitory rather than mandatory were, in earlier times, much less sweeping than their modern counterparts. Prior to the labor injunctions of the late 1800’s, injunctions were issued primarily in relatively narrow disputes over property. See, e. g., W. Kerr, Law and Practice of Injunctions *7 (2d Am. Ed. 1880); see also F. Frankfurter & N. Greene, The Labor Injunction 23-24, 87-88 (1930).

Contemporary courts have abandoned these earlier limitations upon the scope of their mandatory and injunctive decrees. See G. McDowell, Equity and the Constitution 4, 9 (1982). They routinely issue complex decrees which involve them in extended disputes and place them in continuing supervisory roles over parties and institutions. See, e. g., Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U. S. 33, 56-58 (1990); Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U. S. 1, 16 (1971). Professor Chayes has described the extent of the transformation:

“[The modern decree] differs in almost every relevant characteristic from relief in the traditional model of adjudication, not the least in that it is the centerpiece.... It provides for a complex, on-going regime of performance rather than a simple, one-shot, one-way transfer. Finally, it prolongs and deepens, rather than terminates, the court’s involvement with the dispute.” Chayes, The *843Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation, 89 Harv. L. Rev. 1281, 1298 (1976).

The consequences of this change for the point under discussion here are obvious: When an order governs many aspects of a litigant’s activities, rather than just a discrete act, determining compliance becomes much more difficult. Credibility issues arise, for which the factfinding protections of the criminal law (including jury trial) become much more important. And when continuing prohibitions or obligations are imposed, the order cannot be complied with (and the contempt “purged”) in a single act; it continues to govern the party’s behavior, on pain of punishment — not unlike the criminal law.

The order at issue here provides a relatively tame example of the modern, complex decree. The amended injunction prohibited, inter alia, rock throwing, the puncturing of tires, threatening, following or interfering with respondents’ employees, placing pickets in other than specified locations, and roving picketing; and it required, inter alia, that petitioners provide a list of names of designated supervisors. App. to Pet. for Cert. 113a-116a. Although it would seem quite in accord with historical practice to enforce, by conditional incarceration or per diem fines, compliance with the last provision — a discrete command, observance of which is readily ascertained — using that same means to enforce the remainder of the order would be a novelty.

* * *

The use of a civil process for contempt sanctions “makes no sense except as a consequence of historical practice.” Weiss v. United States, 510 U. S. 163, 198 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). As the scope of injunctions has expanded, they have lost some of the distinctive features that made enforcement through civil process acceptable. It is not that the times, or our perceptions of fairness, have changed (that is in my view no basis *844for either tightening or relaxing the traditional demands of due process); but rather that the modern judicial order is in its relevant essentials not the same device that in former times could always be enforced by civil contempt. So adjustments will have to be made. We will have to decide at some point which modern injunctions sufficiently resemble their historical namesakes to warrant the same extraordinary means of enforcement. We need not draw that line in the present case, and so I am content to join the opinion of the Court.

Justice Ginsburg,

with whom The Chief Justice joins, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

The issue in this case is whether the contempt proceedings brought against the petitioner unions are to be classified as “civil” or “criminal.” As the Court explains, if those proceedings were “criminal,” then the unions were entitled under our precedents to a jury trial, and the disputed fines, imposed in bench proceedings, could not stand. See ante, at 826-827.

I

Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418 (1911), as the Court notes, see ante, at 827-828, is a pathmarking case in this area. The civil contempt sanction, Gompers instructs, is designed “to coerce the defendant to do the thing required by the order for the benefit of the complainant,” rather than “to vindicate the authority of the law.” 221 U. S., at 442. The sanction operates coercively because it applies continuously until the defendant performs the discrete, “affirmative act” required by the court’s order, for example, production of a document or presentation of testimony. Ibid. The civil contemnor thus “ 'carries the keys of his prison in his own pocket’ At any moment, “[h]e can end the sentence and discharge himself... by doing what he had previously refused to do.” Ibid., quoting In re Nevitt, 117 F. 448, 461 (CA8 1902).

*845The criminal contempt sanction, by contrast, is “punitive, [imposed] to vindicate the authority of the court.” Gompers, 221 U. S., at 441. Unlike the civil contemnor, who has refused to perform some discrete, affirmative act commanded by the court, Gompers explains, the criminal contemnor has “do[ne] that which he has been commanded not to do.” Id., at 442. The criminal contemnor’s disobedience is past, a “completed act,” id., at 443, a deed no sanction can undo. See id., at 442. Accordingly, the criminal contempt sanction operates not to coerce a future act from the defendant for the benefit of the complainant, but to uphold the dignity of the law, by punishing the contemnor’s disobedience. Id., at 442-443. Because the criminal contempt sanction is determinate and unconditional, the Court said in Gompers, “the defendant is furnished no key, and he cannot shorten the term by promising not to repeat the offense.” Id., at 442.

Even as it outlined these civil and criminal contempt prototypes, however, the Court in Gompers acknowledged that the categories, when filled by actual cases, are not altogether neat and tidy. Civil contempt proceedings, although primarily remedial, also "vindicat[e] . . . the court's authority"; and criminal contempt proceedings, although designed "to vindicate the authority of the law," may bestow "some incidental benefit" upon the complainant, because "such punishment tends to prevent a repetition of the disobedience." Id., at 443.

II

The classifications described in Gompers have come under strong criticism, particularly from scholars. Many have observed, as did the Court in Gompers itself, that the categories, “civil” and “criminal” contempt, are unstable in theory and problematic in practice. See ante, at 827, n. 3 (citing scholarly criticism); see also Dudley, Getting Beyond the Civil/Criminal Distinction: A New Approach to the Regulation of Indirect Contempts, 79 Va. L. Rev. 1025, 1025, n. 1 (1993) (citing additional scholarly criticism).

*846Our cases, however, have consistently resorted to the distinction between criminal and civil contempt to determine whether certain constitutional protections, required in criminal prosecutions, apply in contempt proceedings. See, e. g., United States v. Dixon, 509 U. S. 688, 696 (1993) (“We have held that [certain] constitutional protections for criminal defendants . . . apply in nonsummary criminal contempt prosecutions just as they do in other criminal prosecutions.”) (citing cases). And the Court has repeatedly relied upon Gompers’ delineation of the distinction between criminal and civil contempt. See, e. g., Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U. S. 624, 631-633, 635-636 (1988). The parties, accordingly, have presented their arguments within the Gompers framework.

Two considerations persuade me that the contempt proceedings in this case should be classified as “criminal” rather than “civil.” First, were we to accept the logic of Bagwell’s argument that the fines here were civil, because “conditional” and “coercive,” no fine would elude that categorization. The fines in this case were “conditional,” Bagwell says, because they would not have been imposed if the unions had complied with the injunction. The fines would have been “conditional” in this sense, however, even if the court had not supplemented the injunction with its fines schedule; indeed, any fine is “conditional” upon compliance or noncompliance before its imposition. Cf. ante, at 837 (the unions’ ability to avoid imposition of the fines was “indistinguishable from the ability of any ordinary citizen to avoid a criminal sanction by conforming his behavior to the law”). Furthermore, while the fines were “coercive,” in the sense that one of their purposes was to encourage union compliance with the injunction, criminal contempt sanctions may also “coerce” in this same sense, for they, too, “ten[d] to prevent a repetition of the disobedience.” Gompers, 221 U. S., at 443. Bagwell’s thesis that the fines were civil, because “condi*847tional” and “coercive,” would so broaden the compass of those terms that their line-drawing function would be lost.*

Second, the Virginia courts’ refusal to vacate the fines, despite the parties’ settlement and joint motion, see ante, at 825-826, is characteristic of criminal, not civil, proceedings. In explaining why the fines outlived the underlying civil dispute, the Supreme Court of Virginia stated: “Courts of the Commonwealth must have the authority to enforce their orders by employing coercive, civil sanctions if the dignity of the law and public respect for the judiciary are to be maintained.” 244 Va. 463, 478, 423 S. E. 2d 349, 358 (1992). The Virginia court’s references to upholding public authority and maintaining “the dignity of the law” reflect the very purposes Gompers ranked on the criminal contempt side. See supra, at 844-845. Moreover, with the private complainant gone from the scene, and an official appointed by the Commonwealth to collect the fines for the Commonwealth’s coffers, it is implausible to invoke the justification of benefiting the civil complainant. The Commonwealth here pursues the fines on its own account, not as the agent of a private party, and without tying the exactions exclusively to a claim for compensation. Cf. Hicks, 485 U. S., at 632 (“[A] fine . . . [is] punitive when it is paid to the court,” but “remedial” or “civil” “when the defendant can avoid paying the fine simply by performing the affirmative act required by the court’s order.”). If, as the trial court declared, the proceedings *848were indeed civil from the outset, then the court should have granted the parties’ motions to vacate the fines.

* * *

Concluding that the fines at issue “are more closely analogous to . . . criminal fines” than to civil fines, ante, at 837, I join the Court's judgment and all but Part II-B of its opinion.

OPINION

NIERENGARTEN, Judge.

Time-Share Systems, Inc. (Time-Share) and Gary Schmidt were engaged in litigation over the ownership and rights to computer software. During the course of litigation the trial court ordered Schmidt to allow Time-Share access to Schmidt’s computer in order to do a file save.1 Schmidt also was ordered not to delete any data prior to the file save. A file save was done but the trial court found that Schmidt deleted, or allowed to be deleted certain files. The trial court found that Schmidt, his companies, and the officers of his companies had violated the court order and were in contempt. The court levied fines, costs, and attorney’s fees. Schmidt appeals. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for proof of damages.

FACTS

In late 1983 Gary Schmidt began using the services of Time-Share Systems, Inc. to manage the inventory and accounting aspects of his business, known at that time as The Wooden Bird. Services provided by Time-Share included the creation of software programs as well as the purchase or lease of computer equipment. Over the year Time-Share and Schmidt had extensive *440dealings with each other as the computer system was expanded.

In 1984 the relationship between the two companies began to break down. Schmidt did not feel he was getting the service he expected and paid for. Time-Share made an effort to remedy the situation but was unable to do so to Schmidt's satisfaction. Schmidt terminated the agreement, TimeShare sued for damages and Schmidt counterclaimed. The parties agreed that Schmidt owned the computer equipment and the dispute revolved around the ownership of certain software designated as “Ease” software.

In December of 1985 Time-Share’s motion to replevin the “Ease” software was granted and Schmidt was ordered to turn “Ease” over to Time-Share. This order specifically provided that Schmidt must appear in court to show why he was not in contempt if he failed to deliver the property. The property was not delivered and the parties appeared in court on January 24, 1986. Schmidt’s attorney indicated that there was a problem in identifying which software belonged to Time-Share and which software belonged to Schmidt. At that time, the court ordered, inter alia, that:

1. Time-Share was to have access to Schmidt’s computers for the purpose of obtaining a file save of all the information on the computer.

2. Schmidt “shall not delete any data or programs from the computer” prior to the file save.

3. If any information has been deleted, Schmidt was to provide Time-Share with its most recent file save.

Once this was accomplished there would be another hearing to determine what should be deleted from Schmidt’s computers.

Between noon and 1:00 p.m. on January 24, 1986, Time-Share’s representative arrived at Schmidt’s place of business to carry out the court order. He was not given access to the computer until approximately 5:00 p.m., at which time the file save was done.

An examination of the file save and other evidence indicated that data was deleted from the computer on the same day the court order was issued. Schmidt contended that the deletion was by a computer programmer, formerly employed by TimeShare, without Schmidt’s knowledge. The programmer is presently employed by Schmidt’s company, as an independent contractor, to develop software to replace the unsatisfactory software they bought from Time-Share. The programmer and TimeShare also are engaged in litigation concerning the programmer’s program development. Schmidt’s employees had notified the programmer by phone of the court ordered file save. The programmer proceeded to delete certain programs which he claimed were his and not Time-Share’s.

On April 9, 1986 the court found Schmidt in contempt of court and ordered him to pay Time-Share $3,000 in costs and attorney’s fees and $2,500 in damages for violating the court order.

ISSUES

1. Is this contempt order appealable?

2. Was appellant in contempt of court?

ANALYSIS

I

Time-Share argues that a contempt order is not an appealable order and must be dismissed. A contempt order is not appealable if it is an order which directs consequences only if the defendant fails to purge himself of his contempt. Tell v. Tell, 383 N.W.2d 678, 685 (Minn.1986); Becker v. Becker, 300 Minn. 512, 513, 217 N.W.2d 849, 850 (1974). In the present case however, the court has found contempt and imposed fines, costs and attorney fees. There are no conditions and no means by which Schmidt can purge himself of the contempt. It is a final order and thus properly before this court on appeal.

II

Civil contempt is defined as the failure to obey a court order which benefits *441an opposing party m a civil proceeding. The sanction imposed for such failure is ordered primarily to encourage future compliance with the order and to vindicate the rights of the opposing party. Minnesota State Bar Association v. Divorce Assistance Association, Inc., 311 Minn. 276, 285, 248 N.W.2d 733, 741 (1976). The rationale for such power is to provide the trial court with the means to enforce its orders. The trial court has inherently broad discretion to hold an individual in contempt when “the contemnor has acted ‘contumaciously, in bad faith, and out of disrespect for the judicial process.’ ” Erickson v. Erickson, 385 N.W.2d 301, 304 (Minn.1986) (quoting Minnesota State Bar Association v. Divorce Assistance Association, Inc., 311 Minn. 276, 284, 248 N.W.2d 733, 740 (1976)).

The failure to obey a court order in favor of an opposing party in a civil proceeding constitutes constructive civil contempt which is punishable and enforceable by fine or imprisonment. Minn.Stat. § 588.01, subd. 3(3) (1984); Minn.Stat. § 588.02 (1984); Westgor v. Grimm, 381 N.W.2d 877, 879 (Minn.Ct.App.1986). Under Minn.Stat. § 588.11 (1984):

If any actual loss or injury to a party in an action or special proceeding, prejudicial to his right therein, is caused by such contempt, the court or officer, in addition to the fine or imprisonment imposed therefor, may order the person guilty of the contempt to pay the party aggrieved a sum of money sufficient to indemnify him and satisfy his costs and expenses, including a reasonable attorney’s fee incurred in the prosecution of such contempt, * * *.

The trial court judge made the following findings:

1. Appellant’s sole defense was that Steven Fenn deleted the files without his knowledge or consent.

2. It is too much of a coincidence that Fenn just happened to delete the files on the day that the court ordered a file save with no deletions.

3. The court did not believe that during the period from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., when respondents were refused access to ■ the computer, that appellants were unaware that Fenn was deleting files.

4.Certain activities of appellant’s employees actually facilitated the file deletion.

Based on these findings of fact the court found Schmidt in contempt.

When reviewing a contempt order, the appellate court may reverse or modify only if it finds the trial court abused its discretion. Erickson, 385 N.W.2d at 304. There is evidence to support the trial court’s findings. The record shows that appellant notified Fenn of the imminent court order and that Fenn began his deletion process shortly thereafter. The record also shows that Schmidt prevented Time-Share from gaining access to the computer while the deletions were occurring. Additional testimony indicated that Schmidt’s employees undertook certain activities with respect to the computer which allowed the deletions to occur.

The trial court awarded $3,000 to cover the costs and attorney’s fees incurred in the prosecution of the contempt. The record supports the reasonableness of this award and we affirm this award. The trial court also awarded $2,500 to indemnify Time-Share for the contemnors’ wrongful activities. However, “indemnity must be based on proof of damages actually suffered or it cannot be sustained.” Westgor, 381 N.W.2d at 880. See also Campbell v. Motion Picture Machine Operators, 151 Minn. 238, 242, 186 N.W. 787, 789 (1922). There is no evidence to show the amount of damages Time-Share suffered as a result of Schmidt’s activities. This award cannot be sustained without proof.

DECISION

A finding of contempt from which con-temnor cannot purge himself is an appeal-able order. There is no evidence that the trial court abused its discretion in finding the appellant in contempt. The trial court finding of contempt and award of costs and attorney’s fees is affirmed. We remand *442for proof of damages for the award of $2,500.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remand for proof of damages.

TORRUELLA, District Judge.

This appeal questions the validity of a finding of ostensibly civil contempt made against appellant Robert Belanger (Belan-ger) for violating a Preliminary Injunction Order issued by the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire on October 23, 1981. Belanger is President of Local 202 of the Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (PATCO), headquartered in Nashua, New Hampshire. On August 3, 1981 a nationwide strike was authorized by PATCO against the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) air traffic control activities, which was joined in by Local 202. The District Court, at the request of the appellee, issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting certain strike-related activities at the FAA’s facilities in Nashua. After a preliminary injunction hearing, of which appellant was notified but failed to appear, the District Court issued an order restraining appellant:

“Specifically, from having at any given time more than 30 pickets for informational purposes at or near the entrance to the FAA Air Route Traffic Control Center in Nashua, New Hampshire, and having any such pickets any closer to the entrance/exit gates of said Air Route Traffic Control Center than a distance of 40 feet therefrom and from in any way threatening or attempting to threaten any employees of FAA or lawful visitors therein or employees of any other group who have lawful business upon the premises of said Air Traffic Control Center from either entrance or exit to said premises.”

Appellant was personally served with a copy of the «preliminary injunction order on the day it issued.

On September 7, 1981 the first of several incidents took place which led to appellant’s contempt citation. On that day a crowd of two to three hundred persons gathered at the entrance to the Center, at about the time of the 2:30 P.M. shift change. Belan-ger was present and mingled with the crowd, which undisputedly contained more than 30 PATCO members, although less than that number exhibited picket signs at any one time. As working FAA employees appeared on the scene the crowd responded with various strike-related epithets and interfered with exiting vehicles.

On September 19th a similar incident took place, this time with a crowd numbering about 100 persons, 74 of which were identified as known PATCO members. Appellant mingled with the crowd and led sporadic strike-related cheering through a megaphone. Insulting language again emanated from the crowd against those FAA employees who chose to cross the PATCO picket line.

Finally, appellant was present at the Center’s entrance on October 4, 1981. On this occasion he and a group of 20 to 25 PATCO members patrolled back and forth within 5 to 7 feet of the Center’s gate. Just before he engaged in such action, appellant was warned by a Nashua police officer that such action could lead to his arrest for violation of the injunction. Belanger replied that the police officer should “do what you want to do [and] I will do what I have to do”, and proceeded to act as previously described.

Next day, similar actions were engaged in by two other PATCO members, James Vacca and George Jones, who were subse*3quently arrested, charged and indicted for criminal contempt. Both indictments were later dismissed without prejudice.

Appellee petitioned the District Court to hold appellant in contempt of the preliminary injunction order for his conduct of October 4. Following a hearing on October 23, 1981, appellant was found in civil contempt and a fine of $5,000 was imposed upon him, which was stayed pending disposition of this appeal.

Appellant’s first contention challenges the validity of the injunctive order, claiming that it contravenes the “void for ‘vagueness’ ” doctrine1 and Rule 65(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure2 “because it fails to delineate the vague contours of the term ‘picket.’ ” The “void for vagueness” doctrine is a procedural due process concept which requires the giving of appropriate notice of a proscription before a person can be held accountable for its violation. Thus, a government regulation can neither forbid nor require “the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application ...” Connally v. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926). Rule 65(d) embodies this concept. Schmidt v. Lessard, 414 U.S. 473, 476, 94 S.Ct. 713, 715, 38 L.Ed.2d 661 (1974). See also International Longshoremen’s Assoc., Local 1291 v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Assoc., 389 U.S. 64, 76, 88 S.Ct. 201, 208,19 L.Ed.2d 236 (1967).

According to the authorities relied upon by appellant, picketing refers to many different activities,3 and need not involve walking4 or the carrying of a sign by the picket.5 Picketers can merely stand and observe workers without doing anything more, or they can actively communicate information to other persons, if said actions are for the purpose of inducing them to engage in concerted activity against the employer. If communication is involved it can be oral, in writing or by actions. Picketing may take place singly or in groups and may be carried out peacefully, by the use of threats and/or with actual violence.6

Appellant has appropriately indicated that all of these activities fall within what is commonly understood to mean “picketing.” From this appellant concludes that the term “picket” is vague. But the previous listing, far from making the term “picket” vague, accurately describes the kinds of actions that are normally considered as included within the terminology in question and thus makes any such activity “picketing.” Neither due process nor Rule 65(d) require that an order list the components of a term whose boundaries are understood by common parlance. This is particularly unnecessary in this case, when we consider the persons to whom the order is directed. Cf. Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.,-U.S.-,at n.7, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 1191 at n.7, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982). Disclaimer by appellant of knowledge as to the meaning of the term “picket” strikes more of legalistic afterthought than of vagueness and ambiguity-

According to appellant’s own definition, if nothing else, the term “picket” clearly includes patrolling in front of the entrance to an employer’s premises for the purpose of influencing the employees’ conduct vis-a-*4vis an on going labor dispute. K & K Constr. Co. Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 592 F.2d 1228, 1234 (3rd Cir., 1979). Appellant, presumably a “man of common intelligence”, should have known this when he patrolled within a few feet of the gate on October 4, even without reliance on the warning by the police officer. Appellant’s action in patrolling that gate at less than 40 feet was a clear violation of the District Court’s order.

Appellant’s second point on appeal brings into focus the distinction between civil and criminal contempt and the consequences resulting therefrom. Appellant contends that the District Court’s action in imposing a $5,000 fine denotes a punitive purpose, which is impermissible in a civil proceeding. The distinction between civil and criminal contempt requires an inquiry into the purpose served by the contempt proceeding.

The purpose of a criminal contempt proceeding is the vindication of the court’s authority by punishment through fine or imprisonment of the contemnor for his past conduct. United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 302, 67 S.Ct. 677, 700, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947); G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Webster Dictionary Co., Inc., 639 F.2d 29, 40 (1st Cir., 1980). On the other hand, civil contempt proceedings are for the purpose of coercing compliance with the orders of the court and/or to compensate complainant for losses sustained by defendant’s noncompliance. United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. at 303-304, 67 S.Ct. at 701; G. & C. Merriam Co. v. Webster Dictionary Co., Inc., 639 F.2d at 40-41. Coercion may be achieved by imprisonment of the contemnor until he purges himself of the contempt, and/or by a prospective, conditional fine. Merriam, supra, at 41, n.13. Where compensation is intended, a fine can also be imposed, payable to the complainant, but:

“Such fine must of course be based upon evidence of complainant’s actual loss, and his right, as a civil litigant, to the compensatory fine is dependent upon the outcome of the basic controversy.”

Mine Workers, supra, 330 U.S. at 304, 67 S.Ct. at 701 (footnotes omitted).

The government, while consistently labeling the proceedings as civil, has not asserted that the present fine is compensatory for any proved loss, nor was that its position below. The Assistant U.S. Attorney argued that appellant “should not go unchallenged for what he has done in the past,” and recommended a “substantial fine for his behavior in wilfully disobeying.” Here it is argued that the fine’s purpose was “to ensure future compliance with the order,” and “to cure appellant’s wilfull disobedience,” neither, again, being compensatory.

Sanctions for civil contempt must be “wholly remedial,” Nye v. United States, 313 U.S. 33, 42-43, 61 S.Ct. 810, 812-813, 85 L.Ed. 1172 (1941), quoting McCrone v. United States, 307 U.S. 61, 64, 59 S.Ct. 685, 686, 83 L.Ed. 1108 (1939). While “remedy” and “cure” are in one sense interchangeable, that is not the present context, even though a fine may, hopefully, have a “curative effect”. A definite fine which is neither compensatory, nor conditioned on future violations of the court order is punitive and can be imposed only in criminal contempt proceedings. Carbon Fuel Co. v. United Mine Workers, 517 F.2d 1348 (4th Cir., 1975). The present fine was unconditional, and far from being wholly remedial, was wholly punitive; as a civil sanction, it fails entirely. Id.; Flight Engineers Int’l Ass’n v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 301 F.2d 756 (5th Cir., 1962). There is no merit in the government’s argument that this holding leaves individuals free to disregard court orders until such time as they are found in civil contempt and prospective sanctions are attached. Criminal proceedings remain available to punish contemnors for past violations.

If viewed as a criminal proceeding, the case was not properly conducted. In the first place, no notice describing the contempt as criminal was given. F.R.Cr.P. 42(b); Flight Engineers Int’l Ass’n, supra; Cliett v. Hammonds, 305 F.2d 565, 570 (5th Cir., 1962). Nor, in deciding, did the court apply a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970). Finally, a *5$5,000 fine on an individual is “serious,” cf. Muñiz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 95 S.Ct. 2178, 45 L.Ed.2d 319 (1975); Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 L.Ed.2d 522 (1968); and impermissible without a jury trial. Douglass v. First Nat’l Realty Corp., 543 F.2d 894 (D.C.Cir., 1976); Girard v. Goins, 575 F.2d 160 (8th Cir. 1978). While we could perhaps cure this last by reduction of the fine to a nonserious level, because of the other improper procedures it must be vacated entirely. The bare finding of civil contempt may stand. Cf. Cliett v. Hammonds, supra.

Remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

No costs.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

The City of New York moved in this court to hold Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corporation and two of its officers in criminal and civil contempt for willful disobedience of a partial stay order issued by a Judge of this court in connection with a contemporaneously pending motion for leave to appeal. The motion is granted only to the extent of holding Central Hudson in criminal contempt.

Central Hudson owns and operates the Danskammer generating plant and, together with Consolidated Edison, owns and operates the Roseton generating facility. Both facilities are located in Orange County. In 1983, Central Hudson wished to convert Units 3 and 4 of its Danskammer facility from oil to coal firing. It filed an application and draft environmental impact statement with the State Department of Environmental Conservation (D.E.C.) seeking to modify its air quality certificate and to gain approval for the conversion plan. On June 19, 1985, the State Commissioner approved the conversion plan on condition that lower sulfur content oil be used at the nearby Roseton facility.

The Department of Environmental Protection of the City of New York (the City), whose water supply is affected by acid deposition from the Danskammer and Roseton facilities, started a proceeding to annul the State Commissioner’s determination. The Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. (E.D.F.) intervened and joined the City, and Central Hudson and ConEd intervened and joined the State. On transfer to the Appellate Division, the State Commissioner’s determination was unanimously annulled on November 13, 1986 (120 AD2d 166).

*237Shortly after the Appellate Division’s decision was made but before an order was entered, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations and the prevailing City and E.D.F. continued to forego submission of an order for entry by that court while settlement negotiations were pursued. In early April, the City learned that the State D.E.C. had, without notice to parties, issued a "Certificate of Operation” dated February 27, 1987 which authorized the burning of coal at Danskammer, and that Central Hudson had been burning coal pursuant to this certificate since March. By its own terms, this "Certificate to Operate” was predicated on the Commissioner’s determination of June 19, 1985, despite the annulment of that determination by the Appellate Division (120 AD2d 166, supra).

The City then quickly proposed an order to effectuate the Appellate Division’s decision. The order was entered by that court on April 7, 1987 and it formally nullified the express predicate for the February "Certificate of Operation”. The Attorney-General on behalf of D.E.C. submitted an affidavit of intention to move for leave to appeal, triggering an automatic stay pursuant to CPLR 5519 (a) (1), a provision designed for the benefit of State and municipal litigants, which also inured to the benefit of the private litigant Central Hudson.

On April 8, 1987, the City presented an order to show cause to a Judge of this court, seeking to vacate the automatic stay. On the same day Central Hudson, represented by the law firm of Whiteman, Osterman and Hanna, moved in opposition to the vacatur and presented its own order to show cause for an independent interim stay of enforcement of the Appellate Division order pursuant to CPLR 5519 (c).

On April 9, 1987, the Judge to whom the proposed orders were presented convened a hearing, with counsel for all parties participating. On April 10, 1987, the Judge issued an order vacating the automatic stay; he simultaneously rejected the Central Hudson order to show cause and, instead, prepared and signed an order to show cause granting only partial stay relief to Central Hudson. This order contained the following provision: "ordered that, pending determination by this Court of the motions for said stay, for vacatur of CPLR 5519 (a) (1) stay vacated by separate order to show cause signed simultaneously herewith, and for leave to appeal by respondents and intervenors-respondents, said intervenors-respondents are granted a stay of the Appellate Division order to the extent only that they may continue plant conversion construe*238tion pursuant to the original license issued by the Department of Environmental Conservation, noting especially that this interim partial stay pending the disposition of all motions in this Court shall not authorize the actual burning of coal fuel pursuant to licenses or authorizations rendered subsequent to the Appellate Division’s annulment of the determination affecting the original license” (emphasis added).

On April 14, 1987, Philip Gitlen, an attorney with the firm representing Central Hudson, informed the Assistant Attorney-General and the Assistant Corporation Counsel that he did not interpret the partial stay order as prohibiting the burning of coal at Danskammer, that he so informed his client, and that Central Hudson was continuing to burn coal. To support this interpretation, Mr. Gitlen alluded to and gave critical weight to questions and comments made during the in-chambers hearing of April 9, 1987. In a letter dated April 16, 1987, the Assistant Attorney-General, Central Hudson’s own corespondent in this matter, advised Mr. Gitlen that he disagreed with Mr. Gitlen’s interpretation since, in his view, the order by its own terms clearly prohibited the continued burning of coal at Danskammer. The Assistant Attorney-General urged Central Hudson, in writing, to cease burning coal immediately.

The City, in turn, responded to these events by making an additional motion seeking: (1) to hold Central Hudson and two of its officers in civil and criminal contempt of an order of this court; (2) the imposition of a fine of $1.6 million plus $1.6 million per month for each month Central Hudson failed to comply with the partial stay order; and (3) weekly verification that Central Hudson was not burning coal at the Danskammer plant.

On April 23, 1987, this court denied the predicate motions for leave to appeal and dismissed the stay motions as academic (69 NY2d 921), rendering the Appellate Division decision final. This court also concluded that the City’s allegations of contemptuous conduct were sufficient to require independent factual inquiry and ordered the parties to present evidence at a hearing before the Honorable Joseph F. Gagliardi, Justice of the Supreme Court and Administrative Judge of the Ninth Judicial District.

Shortly after this facet of the matter was referred to Justice Gagliardi for hearing and report, the parties settled all remaining aspects of the underlying proceeding pertaining to *239the merits of the controversy. They also attempted to settle the contempt component by withdrawal of the motion and by termination of the reference. We directed that the reference be completed so that a full record could be developed as to whether withdrawal was warranted.

Justice Gagliardi’s comprehensive report contained two findings and a comment on the fine to be imposed in the event that a finding of criminal contempt was made. The first finding was that Central Hudson, as represented by its attorneys, "was not acting upon a good faith interpretation of the partial stay order when it continued to burn coal at Danskammer Unit 4 from April 10 through April 26, 1987”. The second finding was that "[t]he City did not suffer any damages as a result of the continued coal burning at Danskammer Unit 4 from April 10 through April 26, 1987”. Finally, Justice Gagliardi appropriately left to this court the issue of the fine amount in the event we found Central Hudson’s conduct to be a criminal contempt. We confirm the findings and conclude that Central Hudson willfully disobeyed a lawful order of this court. Consequently, it must be held in criminal contempt and the fine is fixed in the amount of $250, the maximum permitted by law (Judiciary Law § 751 [1]).

This court’s power to punish for civil and criminal contempt is found respectively in Judiciary Law § 753 (A) (3) and § 750 (A) (3). Although the same act may be punishable as both a civil and a criminal contempt, the two types of contempt serve separate and distinct purposes. A civil contempt is one where the rights of an individual have been harmed by the contemnor’s failure to obey a court order (People ex rel. Munsell v Court of Oyer & Terminer, 101 NY 245). Any penalty imposed is designed not to punish but, rather, to compensate the injured private party or to coerce compliance with the court’s mandate or both (State of New York v Unique Ideas, 44 NY2d 345). A criminal contempt, on the other hand, involves an offense against judicial authority and is utilized to protect the integrity of the judicial process and to compel respect for its mandates (King v Barnes, 113 NY 476). Unlike civil contempt, the aim in a criminal contempt proceeding is solely to punish the contemnor for disobeying a court order, the penalty imposed being punitive rather than compensatory (State of New York v Unique Ideas, 44 NY2d 345, supra).

In keeping with a civil contempt’s distinct purpose, it must be established that the rights of a party to the litigation have *240been prejudiced (Judiciary Law § 753 [A]; Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574). In a criminal contempt proceeding, no such showing is needed since the right of the private parties to the litigation is not the controlling factor. A key distinguishing element between civil and criminal contempt is the degree of willfulness of the subject conduct. To be found guilty of criminal contempt, the contemnor usually must be shown to have violated the order with a higher degree of willfulness than is required in a civil contempt proceeding (supra, at 583).

Despite these distinctions, the two categories of contempt share some common elements. To sustain a finding of either civil or criminal contempt based on an alleged violation of a court order it is necessary to establish that a lawful order of the court clearly expressing an unequivocal mandate was in effect (supra, at 583). It must also appear with reasonable certainty that the order has been disobeyed (Pereira v Pereira, 35 NY2d 301, 308). Of course, the party charged must have had knowledge of the court’s order (Matter of McCormick v Axelrod, 59 NY2d 574, 583, supra; see also, People ex rel. Stearns v Marr, 181 NY 463, 470).

Although the City sought to have Central Hudson held in both civil and criminal contempt, the underlying dispute between the parties has been settled and the City has requested withdrawal of the contempt motion in its entirety. We are satisfied that the City’s concession that no calculable monetary damages were suffered, coupled with Justice Gagliardi’s confirmation of this fact, effectively disposes of the civil contempt allegations. There is no longer any vitality or purpose to further consideration of the civil contempt charge.

We are likewise satisfied that the motion may be withdrawn in its entirety with respect to individual respondents, the corporate officers.

In contrast, we cannot accept the parties’ private resolution in the matter with respect to the very serious charge of criminal contempt by the utility itself. Allegations of willful disobedience of a proper judicial order strike at the core of the judicial process and implicate weighty public and institutional concerns regarding the integrity of and respect for judicial orders. Based on Justice Gagliardi’s findings and compelling jurisprudential principles, we reject the parties’ request for withdrawal of the criminal contempt motion as to Central Hudson.

*241On the merits, the record supports the finding that Central Hudson was not acting in good faith when it continued to burn coal after having received notice from its own counsel of the partial stay order. We conclude that Central Hudson acted with the requisite willfulness needed to sustain the extraordinary sanction of a criminal contempt.

As with all charges of criminal contempt, the court must look first to the order which Central Hudson is alleged to have disobeyed and then apply the legal principles to the fact findings. To determine whether or not there was a willful violation, Central Hudson’s conduct and the conduct of its legal representatives must be examined in light of the express terms of the order (Ketchum v Edwards, 153 NY 534). If the terms of an order are vague and indefinite as to whether or not a particular action by a party is required or. prohibited, then of course that cannot be the basis of a criminal contempt (Pereira v Pereira, 35 NY2d 301, 308, supra). Where the order alleged to have been disobeyed is capable of a construction consistent with the innocence of the party, there likewise should be no adjudication of contempt (Ketchum v Edwards, 153 NY 534, supra). "Guilt arises only where the authority of the court is flouted” (Matter of Spector v Allen, 281 NY 251, 260).

In its papers in opposition to the contempt charges, Central Hudson concedes that it continued to burn coal after having been informed of the partial stay order. Central Hudson’s defense is that the partial stay order did not order stoppage of coal burning. To support its interpretation, Central Hudson argues that the partial stay does not prohibit the burning of coal at Danskammer Unit 4, but was meant only to clarify for any other court faced with a challenge to the subsequent permit that the order does not independently authorize the burning of coal. Central Hudson urges that this interpretation is not only consistent with the express terms of the stay, but is also consistent with the April 9, 1987 in-chambers discussion between the parties and the Judge who issued the order. As an alternative argument, Central Hudson contends that it should not be found in contempt because Central Hudson relied on counsel’s interpretation of the partial stay order and counsel’s advice to continue to burn coal. These arguments are unavailing.

When the Appellate Division order was entered on April 7, 1987, Central Hudson was left without authority to continue *242construction or to burn coal at Danskammer. This is so because the order annulled the State Commissioner’s primary authorization of June 19, 1985. Thus, everything based on this determination, including the February 27, 1987 operating permit, fell with that judicial annulment. The only way Central Hudson could lawfully continue any phase of the Danskammer project was to obtain stay relief from the Court of Appeals. The key order to show cause signed on April 10, 1987 permitted only plant conversion construction to continue and specifically stated that it did not authorize the burning of coal. There was thus no longer any agency or judicial authorization to burn coal. Its argument now that it was relying on a selective part of the in-chambers hypothetical questioning at the motion hearing is unavailing because it is customarily and professionally understood that no such reliance is permissible, and because its own counsel conceded before Justice Gagliardi that there was an express advisement that statements made at that time were merely exploratory and should not be construed as rulings (see, Referee’s Report, May 29, 1987, at 85). Based on the evidence adduced at the hearing before Justice Gagliardi, all of the participants understood what the competing goals of the parties were: the City wanted to stop coal burning and the utility wanted at least to continue its conversion construction project. The signed order to show cause expressly reflected that dichotomy.

Central Hudson had actual notice of the order granting only partial relief, i.e., continuation of construction, since the terms of the order were promptly communicated orally and in writing to its attorneys, Mr. Gitlen and to his associate Philip Dixon. The client cannot successfully argue that it is shielded from contempt by reliance on its lawyer’s advice in this case, because that would allow judicial orders to be too easily evaded and disobeyed.

Under these circumstances, Central Hudson put itself in violation of a clear mandate of this court when it continued to burn coal at Unit 4. In effect, Central Hudson sought a whole loaf of relief and, when granted only a half, took the rest by a calculated misinterpretation of the subject order.

Accordingly, the application to withdraw the motion for contempt is granted to the extent only of approving the withdrawal of the civil contempt aspect; the motion for criminal contempt is granted, with costs, only as against Central *243Hudson which is fined the statutory maximum of $250 (Judiciary Law § 751 [1]).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur in Per Curiam opinion.

Application to withdraw the motion for contempt granted, etc.

Justice White

delivered the opinion of the Court.

A parent failed to comply with a valid court order to make child support payments, and defended against subsequent contempt charges by claiming that he was financially unable *627to make the required payments. The trial court ruled that under state law he is presumed to remain able to comply with the térms of the prior order, and judged him to be in contempt. The state appellate court held that the legislative presumptions applied by the trial court violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which forbids a court to employ certain presumptions that affect the determination of guilt or innocence in criminal proceedings. We must decide whether the Due Process Clause was properly applied in this case.

I

On January 19, 1976, a California state court entered an order requiring respondent, Phillip Feiock, to begin making monthly payments to his ex-wife for the support of their three children. Over the next six years, respondent only sporadically complied with the order, and by December 1982 he had discontinued paying child support altogether. His ex-wife sought to enforce the support orders. On June 22, 1984, a hearing was held in California state court on her petition for ongoing support payments and for payment of the arrearage due her. The court examined respondent’s financial situation and ordered him to begin paying $150 per month commencing on July 1,1984. The court reserved jurisdiction over the matter for the purpose of determining the arrearages and reviewing respondent’s financial condition.

Respondent apparently made two monthly payments but paid nothing for the next nine months. He was then served with an order to show cause why he should not be held in contempt on nine counts of failure to make the monthly payments ordered by the court. At a hearing on August 9, 1985, petitioner made out a prima facie case of contempt against respondent by establishing the existence of a valid court order, respondent’s knowledge of the order, and respondent’s failure to comply with the order. Respondent defended by arguing that he was unable to pay support during *628the months in question. This argument was partially successful, but respondent was adjudged to be in contempt on five of the nine counts. He was sentenced to 5 days in jail on each count, to be served consecutively, for a total of 25 days. This sentence was suspended, however, and respondent was placed on probation for three years. As one of the conditions of his probation, he was ordered once again to make support payments of $150 per month. As another condition of his probation, he was ordered, starting the following month, to begin repaying $50 per month on his accumulated arrearage, which was determined to total $1,650.

At the hearing, respondent had objected to the application of Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 1209.5 (West 1982) against him, claiming that it was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it shifts to the defendant the burden of proving inability to comply with the order, which is an element of the crime of contempt.1 This objection was rejected, and he renewed it on appeal. The intermediate state appellate court agreed with respondent and annulled the contempt order, ruling that the state statute purports to impose “a mandatory presumption compelling a conclusion of guilt without independent proof of an ability to pay,” and is therefore unconstitutional because “the mandatory nature of the presumption lessens the prosecution’s burden of proof.” 180 Cal. App. 3d 649, 654, 225 Cal. Rptr. 748, 751 (1986).2 In light of its holding that the statute as previously interpreted was unconstitutional, the *629court went on to adopt a different interpretation of that statute to govern future proceedings: “For future guidance, however, we determine the statute in question should be construed as authorizing a permissive inference, but not a mandatory presumption.” Id., at 655, 225 Cal. Rptr., at 751. The court explicitly considered this reinterpretation of the statute to be an exercise of its “obligation to interpret the statute to preserve its constitutionality whenever possible.” Ibid. The California Supreme Court denied review, but we granted certiorari. 480 U. S. 915 (1987).

II

Three issues must be decided to resolve this case. First is whether the ability to comply with a court order constitutes an element of the offense of contempt or, instead, inability to comply is an affirmative defense to that charge. Second is whether § 1209.5 requires the alleged contemnor to shoulder the burden of persuasion or merely the burden of production in attempting to establish his inability to comply with the order. Third is whether this contempt proceeding was a criminal proceeding or a civil proceeding, i. e., whether the relief imposed upon respondent was criminal or civil in nature.

Petitioner argues that the state appellate court erred in its determinations on the first two points of state law. The court ruled that whether the individual is able to comply with a court order is an element of the offense of contempt rather than an affirmative defense to the charge, and that § 1209.5 shifts to the alleged contemnor the burden of persuasion rather than simply the burden of production in showing inability to comply. We are not at liberty to depart from the state appellate court’s resolution of these issues of state law. Although petitioner marshals a number of sources in support of the contention that the state appellate court misapplied state law on these two points, the California Supreme Court *630denied review of this case, and we are not free in this situation to overturn the state court’s conclusions of state law.3

The third issue, however, is a different matter: the argument is not merely that the state court misapplied state law, but that the characterization of this proceeding and the relief given as civil or criminal in nature, for purposes of determining the proper applicability of federal constitutional protections, raises a question of federal law rather than state law. This proposition is correct as stated. In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 365-366 (1970); In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 49-50 (1967); Shillitani v. United States, 384 U. S. 364, 368-369 (1966). The fact that this proceeding and the resultant relief were judged to be criminal in nature as a matter of state law is thus not determinative of this issue, and the state appellate court erred insofar as it sustained respondent’s challenge to the statute under the Due Process Clause simply because it concluded that this contempt proceeding is “quasi-criminal” as a matter of California law. 180 Cal. App. 3d, at 653, 225 Cal. Rptr., at 750.

*631III

A

The question of how a court determines whether to classify the relief imposed in a given proceeding as civil or criminal in nature, for the purposes of applying the Due Process Clause and other provisions of the Constitution, is one of long standing, and its principles have been settled at least in their broad outlines for many decades. When a State’s proceedings are involved, state law provides strong guidance about whether or not the State is exercising its authority “in a nonpunitive, noncriminal manner,” and one who challenges the State’s classification of the relief imposed as “civil” or “criminal” may be required to show “the clearest proof” that it is not correct as a matter of federal law. Allen v. Illinois, 478 U. S. 364, 368-369 (1986). Nonetheless, if such a challenge is substantiated, then the labels affixed either to the proceeding or to the relief imposed under state law are not controlling and will not be allowed to defeat the applicable protections of federal constitutional law. Ibid. This is particularly so in the codified laws of contempt, where the “civil” and “criminal” labels of the law have become increasingly blurred.4

Instead, the critical features are the substance of the proceeding and the character of the relief that the proceeding will afford. “If it is for civil contempt the punishment is remedial, and for the benefit of the complainant. But if it is for criminal contempt the sentence is punitive, to vindicate the authority of the court.” Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 441 (1911). The character of the relief imposed is thus ascertainable by applying a few straightfor*632ward rules. If the relief provided is a sentence of imprisonment, it is remedial if “the defendant stands committed unless and until he performs the affirmative act required by the court’s order,” and is punitive if “the sentence is limited to imprisonment for a definite period.” Id., at 442. If the relief provided is a fine, it is remedial when it is paid to the complainant, and punitive when it is paid to the court, though a fine that would be payable to the court is also remedial when the defendant can avoid paying the fine simply by performing the affirmative act required by the court’s order. These distinctions lead up to the fundamental proposition that criminal penalties may not be imposed on someone who has not been afforded the protections that the Constitution requires of such criminal proceedings, including the requirement that the offense be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e. g., Gompers, supra, at 444; Michaelson v. United States ex rel. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 266 U. S. 42, 66 (1924).5

The Court has consistently applied these principles. In Gompers, decided early in this century, three men were found guilty of contempt and were sentenced to serve 6, 9, and 12 months respectively. . The Court found this relief to be criminal in nature because the sentence was determinate and unconditional. “The distinction between refusing to do an act commanded, —remedied by imprisonment until the party performs the required act; and doing an act forbidden, — punished by imprisonment for a definite term; is sound in principle, and generally, if not universally, affords a test by which to determine the character of the punishment.” *633Gompers, 221 U. S., at 443. In the former instance, the conditional nature of the punishment renders the relief civil in nature because the contemnor “can end the sentence and discharge himself at any moment by doing what he had previously refused to do.” Id., at 442. In the latter instance, the unconditional nature of the punishment renders the relief' criminal in nature because the relief “cannot undo or remedy what has been done nor afford any compensation” and the contemnor “cannot shorten the term by promising not to repeat the offense.” Ibid.

The distinction between relief that is civil in nature and relief that is criminal in nature has been repeated and followed in many cases. An unconditional penalty is criminal in nature because it is “solely and exclusively punitive in character.” Penfield Co. v. SEC, 330 U. S. 585, 593 (1947). A conditional penalty, by contrast, is civil because it is specifically designed to compel the doing of some act. “One who is fined, unless by a day certain he [does the act ordered], has it in his power to avoid any penalty. And those who are imprisoned until they obey the order, ‘carry the keys of their prison in their own pockets.’” Id., at 590, quoting In re Nevitt, 117 F. 448, 461 (CA8 1902). In Penfield, a man was found guilty of contempt for refusing to obey a court order to produce documents. This Court ruled that since the man was not tried in a proceeding that afforded him the applicable constitutional protections, he could be given a conditional term of imprisonment but could not be made to pay “a flat, unconditional fine of $50.00.” Penfield, supra, at 588.6 See *634also United States v. Rylander, 460 U. S. 752 (1983); Nye v. United States, 313 U. S. 33 (1941); Fox v. Capital Co., 299 U. S. 105 (1936); Lamb v. Cramer, 285 U. S. 217 (1932); Oriel v. Russell, 278 U. S. 358 (1929); Ex parte Grossman, 267 U. S. 87 (1925); Doyle v. London Guarantee Co., 204 U. S. 599 (1907); In re Christensen Engineering Co., 194 U. S. 458 (1904); Bessette v. W. B. Conkey Co., 194 U. S. 324 (1904).

Shillitani v. United States, 384 U. S. 364 (1966), adheres to these same principles. There two men were adjudged guilty of contempt for refusing to obey a court order to testify under a grant of immunity. Both were sentenced to two years of imprisonment, with the proviso that if either answered the questions before his sentence ended, he would be released. The penalties were upheld because of their “conditional nature,” even though the underlying proceeding lacked certain constitutional protections that are essential in criminal proceedings. Id., at 365. Any sentence “must be viewed as remedial,” and hence civil in nature, “if the court conditions release upon the contemnor’s willingness to [comply with the order].” Id., at 370. By the same token, in a civil proceeding the court “may also impose a determinate sentence which includes a purge clause.” Id., at 370, n. 6 (emphasis added). “On the contrary, a criminal contempt proceeding would be characterized by the imposition of an *635unconditional sentence for punishment or deterrence.” Id., at 370, n. 5.7

B

In repeatedly stating and following the rules set out above, the Court has eschewed any alternative formulation that would make the classification of the relief imposed in a State’s proceedings turn simply on what their underlying purposes are perceived to be. Although the purposes that lie behind particular kinds of relief are germane to understanding their character, this Court has never undertaken to psychoanalyze the subjective intent of a State’s laws and its courts, not only because that effort would be unseemly and improper, but also because it would be misguided. In contempt cases, both civil and criminal relief have aspects that can be seen as either remedial or punitive or both: when a court imposes fines and punishments on a contemnor, it is not only vindicating its legal authority to enter the initial court order, but it also is seeking to give effect to the law’s purpose of modifying the contemnor’s behavior to conform to the terms required in the order. As was noted in Gompers:

“It is true that either form of [punishment] has also an incidental effect. For if the case is civil and the punishment is purely remedial, there is also a vindication of the court’s authority. On the other hand, if the proceeding is for criminal contempt and the [punishment] is solely *636punitive, to vindicate the authority of the law, the complainant may also derive some incidental benefit from the fact that such punishment tends to prevent a repetition of the disobedience. But such indirect consequences will not change [punishment] which is merely coercive and remedial, into that which is solely punitive in character, or vice versa” 221 U. S., at 443.

For these reasons, this Court has judged that conclusions about the purposes for which relief is imposed are properly drawn from an examination of the character of the relief itself.

There is yet another reason why the overlapping purposes of civil and criminal contempt proceedings have prevented this Court from hinging the classification on this point. If the definition of these proceedings and their resultant relief as civil or criminal is made to depend on the federal courts’ views about their underlying purposes, which indeed often are not clearly articulated in any event, then the States will be unable to ascertain with any degree of assurance how their proceedings will be understood as a matter of federal law. The consequences of any such shift in direction would be both serious and unfortunate. Of primary practical importance to the decision in this case is that the States should be given intelligible guidance about how, as a matter of federal constitutional law, they may lawfully employ presumptions and other procedures in their contempt proceedings. It is of great importance to the States that they be able to understand clearly and in advance the tools that are available to them in ensuring swift and certain compliance with valid court orders — not only orders commanding payment of child support, as in this case, but also orders that command compliance in the more general area of domestic relations law, and in all other areas of the law as well.

The States have long been able to plan their own procedures around the traditional distinction between civil and *637criminal remedies. The abandonment of this clear dividing line in favor of a general assessment of the manifold and complex purposes that lie behind a court’s action would create novel problems where now there are rarely any — novel problems that could infect many different areas of the law. And certainly the fact that a contemnor has his sentence suspended and is placed on probation cannot be decisive in defining the civil or criminal nature of the relief, for many convicted criminals are treated in exactly this manner for the purpose (among others) of influencing their behavior. What is true of the respondent in this case is also true of any such convicted criminal: as long as he meets the conditions of his informal probation, he will never enter the jail. Nonetheless, if the sentence is a determinate one, then the punishment is criminal in nature, and it may not be imposed unless federal constitutional protections are applied in the contempt proceeding.8

IV

The proper classification of the relief imposed in respondent’s contempt proceeding is dispositive of this case. As interpreted by the state court here, §1209.5 requires respondent to carry the burden of persuasion on an element of the offense, by showing his inability to comply with the court’s order to make the required payments. If applied in a criminal proceeding, such a statute would violate the Due Process Clause because it would undercut the State’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e. g., Mullaney v. *638Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684, 701-702 (1975). If applied in a civil proceeding, however, this particular statute would be constitutionally valid, Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U. S. 56, 75-76 (1948); Oriel, 278 U. S., at 364-365, and respondent conceded as much at the argument. Tr. of Oral Arg. 37.9

The state court found the contempt proceeding to be “quasi-criminal” in nature without discussing the point. 180 Cal. App. 3d, at 653, 225 Cal. Rptr., at 750. There were strong indications that the proceeding was intended to be criminal in nature, such as the notice sent to respondent, which clearly labeled the proceeding as “criminal in nature,” Order to Show Cause and Declaration for Contempt (June 12, 1985), App. 21, and the participation of the District Attorney in the case. Though significant, these facts are not dispositive of the issue before us, for if the trial court had imposed only civil coercive remedies, as surely it was authorized to do, then it would be improper to invalidate that result merely because the Due Process Clause, as applied in criminal proceedings, was not satisfied.10 It also bears emphasis that the purposes underlying this proceeding were wholly ambiguous. Respondent was charged with violating nine discrete prior court orders, and the proceeding may have been intended *639primarily to vindicate the court’s authority in the face of his defiance. On the other hand, as often is true when court orders are violated, these charges were part of an ongoing battle to force respondent to conform his conduct to the terms of those orders, and of future orders as well.

Applying the traditional rules for classifying the relief imposed in a given proceeding requires the further resolution of one factual question about the nature of the relief in this case. Respondent was charged with nine separate counts of contempt, and was convicted on five of those counts, all of which arose from his failure to comply with orders to make payments in past months. He was sentenced to 5 days in jail on each of the five counts, for a total of 25 days, but his jail sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for three years. If this were all, then the relief afforded would be criminal in nature.11 But this is not all. One of the conditions of respondent’s probation was that he begin making payments on his accumulated arrearage, and that he continue making these payments at the rate of $50 per month. At that rate, all of the arrearage would be paid before respondent completed his probation period. Not only did the order therefore contemplate that respondent would be required to *640purge himself of his past violations, but it expressly states that “[i]f any two payments are missed, whether consecutive or not, the entire balance shall become due and payable.” Order of the California Superior Court for Orange County (Aug. 9, 1985), App. 39. What is unclear is whether the ultimate satisfaction of these accumulated prior payments would have purged the determinate sentence imposed on respondent. Since this aspect of the proceeding will vary as a factual matter from one case to another, depending on the precise disposition entered by the trial court, and since the trial court did not specify this aspect of its disposition in this case, it is not surprising that neither party was able to offer a satisfactory explanation of this point at argument. Tr. of Oral Arg. 42-47.12 If the relief imposed here is in fact a determinate sentence with a purge clause, then it is civil in nature. Shillitani, 384 U. S., at 370, n. 6; Fox, 299 U. S., at 106, 108; Gompers, 221 U. S., at 442.

The state court did not pass on this issue because of its erroneous view that it was enough simply to aver that this proceeding is considered “quasi-criminal” as a matter of state law. And, as noted earlier, the court’s view on this point, coupled with its view of the Federal Constitution, also led it to reinterpret the state statute, thus softening the impact of the presumption, in order to save its constitutionality. Yet the Due Process Clause does not necessarily prohibit the State from employing this presumption as it was construed by the state court, if respondent would purge his contempt judgment by paying off his arrearage. In these circumstances, the proper course for this Court is to vacate the judgment below and remand for further consideration of § 1209.5 free from the compulsion of an erroneous view of fed*641eral law. See, e. g., Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C., 467 U. S. 138, 152 (1984). If on remand it is found that respondent would purge his sentence by paying his arrearage, then this proceeding is civil in nature and there was no need for the state court to reinterpret its statute to avoid conflict with the Due Process Clause.13

We therefore vacate the judgment below and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Justice O’Connor,

with whom

The Chief Justice and Justice & alia join, dissenting.

This case concerns a contempt proceeding against a parent who repeatedly failed to comply with a valid court order to make child support payments. In my view, the proceeding' is civil as a matter of federal law. Therefore, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not prevent the trial court from applying a legislative presumption that the parent remained capable of complying with the order until the time of the contempt proceeding.

*642I

The facts of this case illustrate how difficult.it can be to obtain even modest amounts of child support from a noncustodial parent. Alta Sue Adams married respondent Phillip William Feiock in 1968. The couple resided in California and had three children. In 1973, respondent left the family. Mrs. Feiock filed a petition in the Superior Court of California for the County of Orange seeking dissolution of her marriage, legal custody of the children, and child support. In January 1976, the court entered an interlocutory judgment of dissolution of marriage, awarded custody of the children to Mrs. Feiock, and ordered respondent to pay child support beginning February 1, 1976. The court ordered respondent to pay $35 per child per month for the first four months, and $75 per child per month starting June 1, 1976. The order has never been modified.

After the court entered a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, Mrs. Feiock and the children moved to Ohio. Respondent made child support payments only sporadically and stopped making any payments by December 1982. Pursuant to Ohio’s enactment of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), Mrs. Feiock filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County, Ohio. See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3115.09(B) (1980). The complaint recited that respondent was obliged to pay $225 per month in support, and that respondent was $2,300 in arrears. The Ohio court transmitted the complaint and supporting documents to to the Superior Court of California for the County of Orange, which had jurisdiction over respondent. Petitioner, the Orange County District Attorney, prosecuted the case on behalf of Mrs. Feiock in accordance with California’s version of URESA. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 1670 et seq. (West 1982).

After obtaining several continuances, respondent finally appeared at a hearing before the California court on June 22, 1984. Respondent explained that he had recently become a *643partner in a flower business that had uncertain prospects. The court ordered respondent to pay $150 per month on a temporary basis, although it did not alter the underlying order. Payments were to begin July 1, 1984.

Respondent made payments only for August and September. Respondent appeared in court three times thereafter, but never asked for a modification of the order. Eventually, the Orange County District Attorney filed Orders to Show Cause and Declarations of Contempt alleging nine counts of contempt based on respondent’s failure to make nine of the $150 support payments. At a hearing held August 9, 1985, the District Attorney invoked Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 1209.5 (West 1982), which says:

‘When a court of competent jurisdiction makes an order compelling a parent to furnish support... for his child, . . . proof that the parent was present in court at the time the order was pronounced and proof of noncompliance therewith shall be prima facie evidence of a contempt of court.”

In an effort to overcome this presumption, respondent testified regarding his ability to pay at the timé of each alleged act of contempt. The court found that respondent had been able to pay five of the missed payments. Accordingly, the court found respondent in contempt on five of the nine counts and sentenced him to 5 days in jail on each count, to be served consecutively, for a total of 25 days. The court suspended execution of the sentence and placed respondent on three years’ informal probation on the conditions that he make monthly support payments of $150 starting immediately and additional payments of $50 per month on the arrearage starting October 1, 1985.

Respondent filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the California Court of Appeal, where he prevailed on his argument that § 1209.5 is unconstitutional as a mandatory presumption shifting to the defendant the burden of proof of an element of a criminal offense. That is the argument that the *644Court confronts in this case. In my view, no remand is necessary because the judgment below is incorrect as a matter of federal law.

II

The California Court of Appeal has erected a substantial obstacle to the enforcement of child support orders. As petitioner vividly describes it, the judgment turns the child support order into “a worthless piece of scrap.” Brief for Petitioner 47. The judgment hampers the enforcement of support orders at a time when strengthened enforcement is needed. “The failure of enforcement efforts in this area has become a national scandal. In 1983, only half of custodial parents received the full amount of child support ordered; approximately 26% received some lesser amount, and 24% received nothing at all.” Brief for Women’s Legal Defense Fund et al. as Amici Curiae 26 (footnote omitted). The facts of this case illustrate how easily a reluctant parent can evade a child support obligation. Congress recognized the serious problem of enforcement of child support orders when it enacted the Child. Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984, Pub. L. 98-378, 98 Stat. 1305. S. Rep. No. 98-387, pp. 5-6 (1984); H. R. Rep. No. 98-527, pp. 30, 49 (1983). The California Legislature responded to the problem by enacting the presumption described in §1209.5. Now, says petitioner, the California Court of Appeal has sabotaged the California Legislature’s effort.

Contempt proceedings often will be useless if the parent seeking enforcement of valid support orders must prove that the obligor can comply with the court order. The custodial parent will typically lack access to the financial and employment records needed to sustain the burden imposed by the decision below, especially where the noncustodial parent is self-employed, as is the case here. Serious consequences follow from the California Court of Appeal’s decision to invalidate California’s statutory presumption that a parent contin*645ues to be able to pay the child support previously determined to be within his or her means.

Petitioner asks us to determine as a matter of California law that inability to comply with a support order is an affirmative defense to a contempt charge, so that the burden of persuasion may be placed on the contemnor under Martin v. Ohio, 480 U. S. 228 (1987). Petitioner also contends that the Court of Appeal erred in supposing that §1209.5 shifts the burden of persuasion rather than merely the burden of production, citing Lyons v. Municipal Court, 75 Cal. App. 3d 829, 838, 142 Cal. Rptr. 449, 452 (1977); Oliver v. Superior Court, 197 Cal. App. 2d 237, 242, 17 Cal. Rptr. 474, 476-477 (1961); 4A J. Goddard, California Practice: Family Law Practice § 686 (3d ed. 1981); 14 Cal. Jur. 3d, Contempt §§ 32, 71 (1974); and 6 B. Witkin, Summary of California Law, Parent and Child § 137 (8th ed. 1974). But the interpretation of California law is the province of California courts. I agree with the majority that, for- purposes of this decision, we should assume that the California Court of Appeal correctly determined these matters of state law. Martin v. Ohio, supra; United Gas Public Service Co. v. Texas, 303 U. S. 123, 139 (1938). If the Court of Appeal was in error, the California courts may correct it in future cases.

The linchpin of the Court of Appeal’s opinion is its determination that the contempt proceeding against respondent was criminal in nature. The court applied what it understood are the federal due process standards for mandatory evidentiary presumptions in criminal cases. See Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442 U. S. 140, 167 (1979) (mandatory presumptions are impermissible unless “the fact proved is sufficient to support the inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”); Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U. S. 510, 523-524 (1979). This Court has recognized, by contrast, that civil contempt proceedings do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt and that the rules governing use of presumptions differ accordingly. In the civil contempt context, we have *646upheld a rule that shifts to the contemnor the burden of production on ability to comply, United States v. Rylander, 460 U. S. 752, 757 (1983), and we have recognized that the contemnor may bear the burden of persuasion on this issue as well, Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U. S. 56, 75-76 (1948). If the contempt proceeding in this case may be characterized as civil in nature, as petitioner urges, then under our precedents the presumption provided in Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 1209.5 (West 1982) would not violate the Due Process Clause.

The characterization of a state proceeding as civil or criminal for the purpose of applying the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is itself a question of federal law. Allen v. Illinois, 478 U. S. 364 (1986). The substance of particular contempt proceedings determines whether they are civil or criminal, regardless of the label attached by the court conducting the proceedings. See Shillitani v. United States, 384 U. S. 364, 368-370 (1966); Penfield Co. v. SEC, 330 U. S. 585, 590 (1947); Nye v. United States, 313 U. S. 33, 42-43 (1941); Lamb v. Cramer, 285 U. S. 217, 220-221 (1932); Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 441-443 (1911). Civil contempt proceedings are primarily coercive; criminal contempt proceedings are punitive. As the Court explained in Gompers: “The distinction between refusing to do an act commanded, — remedied by imprisonment until the party performs the required act; and doing an act forbidden, —punished by imprisonment for a definite term; is sound in principle, and generally, if not universally, affords a test by which to determine the character of the punishment.” 221 U. S., at 443. Failure to pay alimony is an example of the type of act cognizable in an action for civil contempt. Id., at 442.

Whether a particular contempt proceeding is civil or criminal can be inferred from objective features of the proceeding and the sanction imposed. The most important indication is whether the judgment inures to the benefit of another party to the proceeding. A fine payable to the complaining party *647and proportioned to the complainant’s loss is compensatory and civil. United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 304 (1947). Because the compensatory purpose limits the amount of the fine, the contemnor is not exposed to a risk of punitive sanctions that would make criminal safeguards necessary. By contrast, a fixed fine payable to the court is punitive and criminal in character.

An analogous distinction can be drawn between types of sentences of incarceration. Commitment to jail or prison for a fixed term usually operates as a punitive sanction because it confers no advantage on the other party. Gompers, supra, at 449. But if a contemnor,, is incarcerated until he or she complies with a court order, the sanction is civil. Although the imprisonment does not compensate the adverse party directly, it is designed to obtain compliance with a court order made in that party’s favor. “When the [contemnors] carry ‘the keys of their prison in their own pockets,’ the action ‘is essentially a civil remedy designed for the benefit of other parties and has quite properly been exercised for centuries to secure compliance with judicial decrees.’ ” Shillitani, supra, at 368 (citations omitted).

Ill

Several peculiar features of California’s contempt law make it difficult to determine whether the proceeding in this case was civil or criminal. All contempt proceedings in California courts áre governed by the same procedural rules. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. §§ 1209-1222 (West 1982 and Supp. 1988); In re Morris, 194 Cal. 63, 67, 227 P. 914, 915 (1924); Wright, Byrne, Haakh, Westbrook, & Wheat, Civil and Criminal Contempt in the Federal Courts, 17 F. R. D. 167, 180 (1955). Because state law provides that defendants in civil contempt proceedings are entitled to most of the protections guaranteed to ordinary criminal defendants, the California courts have held that civil contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal under state law. See, e. g., Ross v. Superior Court, 19 Cal. 3d 899, 913, 569 P. 2d 727, 736 (1977); *648Culver City v. Superior Court, 38 Cal. 2d 535, 541-542, 241 P. 2d 258, 261-262 (1952); In re Martin, 71 Cal. App. 3d 472, 480, 139 Cal. Rptr. 451, 455-456 (1977). Therefore, indications that the California Superior Court conducted respondent’s hearing as a criminal proceeding do not conclusively demonstrate for purposes of federal due process analysis that respondent was tried for criminal contempt.

Certain formal aspects of the proceeding below raise the possibility that it involved criminal contempt. The orders to show cause stated that “[a] contempt proceeding is criminal in nature” and that a violation would subject the respondent to “possible penalties.” App. 18, 21. The orders advised respondent of his right to an attorney. Ibid. During the hearing, the trial judge told respondent that he had a constitutional right not to testify. Id., at 27. Finally, the judge imposed a determinate sentence of five days in jail for each count of contempt, to be served consecutively. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 1218 (West 1982) (contempt may be punished by a fine not exceeding $500, or imprisonment not exceeding five days, or both); cf. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 1219 (West 1982) (contempt may be punished by imprisonment until an act is performed, if the contempt is the omission to perform the act).

Nevertheless, the substance of the proceeding below and the conditions on which the sentence was suspended reveal that the proceeding was civil in nature. Mrs. Feiock initiated the underlying action in order to obtain enforcement of the child support order for the benefit of the Feiock children. The California District Attorney conducted the case under a provision of the URESA that authorizes him to act on Mrs. Feiock’s behalf. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Ann. § 1680 (West 1982). As the very caption of the case in this Court indicates, the District Attorney is acting on behalf of Mrs. Feiock, not as the representative of the State of California in a criminal prosecution. Both of the provisions of California’s *649enactment of the URESA that authorize contempt proceedings appear in a chapter of the Code of Civil Procedure entitled “Civil Enforcement.” Id., §§ 1672, 1685. It appears that most States enforce child and spousal support orders through civil proceedings like this one, in which the burden of persuasion is shifted to the defendant to show inability to comply. J. Atkinson, Modem Child Custody Practice 556 (1986); H. Krause, Child Support in America 65 (1981); Annot., 53 A. L. R. 2d 591, 607-616 (1957 and Supp. 1987).

These indications that the proceeding was civil are confirmed by the character of the sanction imposed on respondent. The California Superior Court sentenced respondent to a fixed term of 25 days in jail. Without more, this sanction would be punitive and appropriate for a criminal contempt. But the court suspended the determinate sentence and placed respondent on three years’ informal probation on the conditions that he comply with the support order in the future and begin to pay on the arrearage that he had accumulated in the past. App. 40. These special conditions aim exclusively at enforcing compliance with the existing child support order.

Our precedents indicate that such a conditional sentence is coercive rather than punitive. Thus in Gompers, we observed that civil contempt may be punished by an order that “the defendant stand committed unless and until he performs the affirmative act required by the court’s order.” 221 U. S., at 442 (emphasis added). In Shillitani, we decided that civil contempt could be punished by a prison sentence fixed at two years if it included a proviso that the contemnor would be released as soon as he complied with the court order. 384 U. S., at 365. In this case, if respondent performs his obligations under the original court order, he can avoid going to jail at all. Like the sentence in Shillitani, respondent’s prison sentence is coercive rather than punitive because it effectively “conditions release upon the contemnor’s willingness to [comply].” Id., at 370.

*650It is true that the order imposing the sentence does not expressly provide that, if respondent is someday incarcerated and if he subsequently complies, he will be released immediately. The parties disagree about what will happen if this contingency arises, Tr. of Oral Arg. 44, 45-47, and there is no need to address today the question whether the failure to grant immediate release would render the sanction criminal. In the case before us respondent carries something even better than the “keys to the prison” in his own pocket: as long as he meets the conditions of his informal probation, he will never enter the jail.

It is critical that the only conditions placed on respondent’s probation, apart from the requirement that he conduct himself generally in accordance with the law, are that he cure his past failures to comply with the support order and that he continue to comply in the future.* The sanction imposed on respondent is unlike ordinary criminal probation because it is collateral to a civil proceeding initiated by a private party, and respondent’s sentence is suspended on the condition that he comply with a court order entered for the benefit of that party. This distinguishes respondent’s sentence from suspended criminal sentences imposed outside the contempt context.

This Court traditionally has inquired into the substance of contempt proceedings to determine whether they are civil or criminal, paying particular attention to whether the sanction *651imposed will benefit another party to the proceeding. In this case, the California Superior Court suspended respondent’s sentence on the condition that he bring himself into compliance with a court order providing support for his children, represented in the proceeding by petitioner. I conclude that the proceeding in this case should be characterized as one for civil contempt, and I would reverse the judgment below.