On Fri, 20 Feb 2009, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> If leniency is warranted, >> the right mechanism would be to say that an Officer should have been >> aware of the abuse (so UNAWARE is not an option in the culpability) but >> not aware of the seriousness, and that this lack of awareness was >> reasonable for an Officer in eir position (questionable IMO), so a >> lighter sentence, or at least a "not-heavier" one, is in order. -Goethe > > Given the wording of R1504, it's not entirely clear to me that it's > appropriate to give a heavier sentence based on the facts of the > original crime anyway, unless we read the SHOULD as giving one > circumstance where the judge might choose to try to double the SILENCE > while there might be others.
Ah yes, you're right, we've taken out the correlation between "severity of the rule breach" and "level of the tariff" that used to be in the chokey rule. Missed that! It probably should be added back specifically, although as you say the CAN is separate from the SHOULD, and as you suggest it's possible to argue that the rules give one SHOULD circumstance that's appropriate for increase; past precedents give other reasons that might be appropriate. -Goethe
