On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:32 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> * FINE in a specified currency whose backing document specifies >> a FINE amount, appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. >> When in effect, the ninny SHALL within 72 hours destroy the >> amount of the specified currency equalling the FINE amount in that >> currency's backing document. The ninny is only obliged to perform one >> destruction per question on sentencing, even if sentences of >> this type are assigned more than once or go into effect more >> than once. > > Having the backing document specify the amount still seems relatively > inflexible. Why not allow the judge to specify the amount as well? > > -root > I would exclude any assets from destruction which are part of a zero-sum system (none at the moment as far as I am aware, but just in case). Also, I think it needs to be "CAN and SHALL" instead of SHALL to override contracts which don't permit the voluntary destruction of their assets.
BobTHJ
