On Tue, 12 May 2009, Sean Hunt wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Ed Murphy <emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: >> Tiger wrote: >> >>> Does this give em 4 rests or 4*20 rests? >> >> It was intended to limit eir potential sentence to 4 (and to block >> separate NoVs due to double jeopardy). Rule 2230 and/or 1504 should >> probably be patched to deal with this. >> > A single NoV can only issue one round of penalties. Twenty NoVs could > create twenty times the penalties, and would not constitute double > jeopardy. As it stands, I believe asi523 has the right not to be > punished againt, and so cannot have 19 more penalties levied against > em.
Since it's not a Rules violation to "do X 20 times", I think any NoV specifying such would lead to NOT GUILTY because the alleged act (singular) of "doing X 20 times" wasn't against the rules. This is another case of the ISID shorthand being mistaken for an actual procedure - no matter how you package it, 20 acts are 20 separate acts, and the criminal courts specifically only deals with one act. The only way to indemnify a defendant from repeated but similar illegal acts is to NoV on a subset of them (each separately, totaling a fair amount of punishment in the circumstances) and then, should anyone bring cases on the rest, argue for a DISCHARGE on the grounds of excessive punishment. If you want a single criminal case to deal with multiple breaches, you need to give the ability to the courts to throw out some charges, set a collective sum punishement, etc.... a whole new process that doesn't currently exist. -Goethe
