Benjamin Schultz wrote: >I didn't see any other sentence >as appropriate for compelling performance of a duty.
There isn't one. That's not what sentences are for. Not sure what I'd have done. It's one of the more willful offences the courts have seen, so chokey may well be appropriate. Viewing chokey as (what it is) a punishment, with deterrent effect, I think one has to consider what would happen if the offence were repeated, making (at least) one new offence per month, and it were to be prosecuted every month. Chokey for one month for each monthly offence would keep the ninny in chokey (approximately) constantly. Scale down from that for anything that doesn't justify constant incarceration. For this case, perhaps, fifteen days chokey for each month's failure to update. (Each month's failure, of course, is a separate criminal CFJ attracting a separate fifteen days of chokey.) If you want coercion, which evidently you do, then (a) credibly threatan repeated criminal penalties, and (b) nominate someone else for the office. -zefram
