Ed Murphy wrote:
> * UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant violated the specified
> rule via the specified action, but reasonably believed at the
> time that e was not violating a rule
This doesn't follow the structure of the other verdicts: the non-GUILTY
verdicts are specified to be non-exclusive. So, for example, a judge
can rule INNOCENT without having to determine whether the action
was proscribed (and thus whether UNIMPUGNED might be appropriate).
A corresponding version of UNAWARE would be
* UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed that
the alleged act was not proscribed by the specified rule at
the time it allegedly occurred
so the judge does not have to rule on whether the act was performed or
whether it was proscribed if e is sure that this defence holds.
I have a problem with your criterion for the defence. It appears to make
ignorance of the law an excuse, even wilful ignorance. Agoran law is not
very large, and I think it is reasonable to require that everyone subject
to it be aware of all relevant parts, other than the rare situations
where we're *all* mistaken as to what the law is. You need to tighten
the condition so that "I didn't bother looking at the result of this
week's proposals" doesn't qualify.
I don't think this separate verdict is necessary, anyway. If done right,
it's a subset of EXCUSED. Doesn't hurt to explicate this particular
excuse, of course.
> * FIFTY DOLLARS AND TIME SERVED, appropriate for rule breaches
> of small consequence. Has effects as defined by other rules.
Yuck.
>Amend the rule "Marks" to ding the ninny 5 Marks of some color (which?)
>(can't do this directly in R1504 due to Power).
Put an enabling clause in the "Marks" rule and add a "FINE" sentence
with variable quantity of marks to be decided by the judge.
-zefram
