On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > Gratuitous response: > Officers have a duty that they freely choose to undertake. It's not the > responsibility of others to tell them what their duty is, so UNAWARE > should be a hard(er) defense for an Officer who was elected to a position > by choice, especially one who has served for some time. See CFJ 1424, > last 4 paragraphs of the judge's arguments. 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
I nominate Goethe for Rulekeepor.
