On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Nov 28, 2007 5:49 PM, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Since the defendant honestly believed that the judgement that e assigned >> was appropriate, I think e should be EXCUSED. Under the recent rule >> change, e could also be found UNAWARE, but EXCUSED covers it. > > I forgot about that. I change my recommendation to UNAWARE, which is > clearly appropriate whereas EXCUSED is questionable.
While I was temporarily unaware of UNAWARE, I still prefer EXCUSED as a precedent for this. If a Judge is aware of some contrary argument, e should still be ethically charged to "not avoid" making *what e believes in good faith* to be an appropriate judgement, even if e is aware of counterarguments. If UNAWARE is the precedent, if I judge one (reasonable) side in a contentious case, and the appeal eventually picks the other side, someone could claim GUILTY based on "you can't hide behind UNAWARE, because you were clearly aware of that argument!" -Goethe
