On Nov 28, 2007 6:35 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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!"
With this precedent in place, do we still need UNAWARE for any reason? -root
