On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 20:50, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > woggle wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 19:09, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Proto-Proposal: Community service >>> (AI = 1.7, please) >>> >>> Amend Rule 1504 (Criminal Cases) by appending this text between the >>> sections on FINE and CHOKEY: >>> >>> * COMMUNITY SERVICE with a set of up to five tasks (the prescribed >>> tasks) that the ninny CAN reasonably perform, appropriate for >>> rule breaches of moderate consequence, and especially if any >>> other available non-null punishment would be either unjust or >>> insufficient. While a sentence of this type is in effect, the >>> ninny SHALL perform the prescribed tasks. >>> >> >> Needs a time limit. > > The judge can build one into the definition of a task. > >> More broadly, I'd like there to be more guidance for judges on what >> sort of tasks should be in the community service, > > "appropriate for rule breaches of moderate consequence if the severity > of the rule breach is reasonably correlated with the consequences of > performing the tasks"
A good start, but could we do better? Like, is this supposed to compensate those wronged by the rule breach or just unilaterally provide punishment? > >> and if such broad >> powers are given to judges we should reinsert the corruptive >> self-interest stuff in the appropriateness of REASSIGN. > > Did that get removed? The last version of the ruleset I've seen > (http://www.geoffreyspear.com/slr.txt) still has it. Hm. I guess you're right because P5669 was ineffective due to the text replaced not matching the actual text -- which means that comex's http://cfj.qoid.us/current_flr.txt is wrong (and, incidentally, the annotation also has the wrong proposal number). - woggle
