On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Taral wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Ed Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: >> I intend (with 2 support) to appeal this judgement on culpability. At >> least explain /why/ you're going against my intent that SHOULD/should >> would be recursively non-binding. > > What intent? > > You know, it's funny. There's no arguments on this CFJ other than a > free admission of guilt.
Indeed. Gratuitous: Guilt here is admitted. The defendant and prosecution didn't give extenuating circumstances for higher or lower punishments. The reformation of the sentencing rules generally implies that Silence is the default (although this isn't set by precedent one way or the other). Also, while precedent holds that you can generally not pay much too much attention to a SHOULD, it's uncertain whether you can recklessly, knowingly, and flagrantly disregard a SHOULD without breaching the Rules. -G.
