On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 4:50 PM Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 6:04 PM Aris Merchant via agora-business < > agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > > > Arguments: > > A fine should be reduced to the degree the infraction was "minor, > > accidental, and/or inconsequential". This violations, while not minor > > or inconsequential, may well have been accidental given the newness of > > the petition mechanism and the relative inactivity of the perps. > > Furthermore, a fine should be increased to the degree the violation > > was "willful, profitable, egregious, or an abuse of an official > > position". This was none of those. Given the totality of the > > circumstances, a fine of the maximum penalty is blatantly and > > obviously unsuitable for the violation, so the fine fails by R2531(3). > > Note that while the Sentencing Guidelines are not explicitly > > referenced by R2531(3), they do represent the ruleset's official > > guidance on what sort of sentences are correct. I'd contend that the > > appropriate fine is 2 blots, though one could argue for 1. > > > I wasn't sure about this and I agree that it was on the harsh end, but I > believe that the forgivability of the fines makes them balanced.
R2531(3) only talks about the value of the fine, not whether or not it is forgivable. So as far as it's concerned, a forgivable 4 blot fine is the same as an unforgivable one. (At least, I contend that it is; the judge may read it differently.) > > Furthermore, the fine is outside the sentencing guidelines in Rule > > 2557, and the Referee CAN only exercise the Cold Hand of Justice to > > levy a fine within those guidelines (note that while the relevant > > guideline is a SHOULD, it's within the scope of the restrictions on > > the CAN; I request that the judge rule on whether that makes it a > > limitation on the CAN as I contend it does). > > > I don't believe that the fine is outside the sentencing guidelines because > my interpretation is that they allow for a fine between 1 and 4 (twice the > default base value of 2) blots for this crime. Could you explain why this > is outside the allowable range because I don't read the rule that way? You're only looking at the first two sentencing guidelines. My (admittedly dubious) reading is that the latter two guidelines also limit the CAN, even though they're phrased as SHOULDs. -Aris
