On Wed, 29 May 2013, omd wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If you're looking for a not guilty now to immunize yourself from a guilty
> > later, that
> > doesn't work. R101 forbids multiple penalties, but not multiple trials.
> > There is a
> > specific precedent to this (I think I argued that a trial was itself a
> > punishment, but
> > no one agreed). -g.
>
> E is not attempting to take advantage of R101, but this clause:
>
> (c) judgement has not already been reached in another criminal
> case with the same Accused, the same rule, and
> substantially the same alleged act;
>
> Incidentally, the refactor also made my old related scam possible
> again - see
> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg15188.html.
> The problem with that was that AFFIRM was appropriate even though
> submitting the same judgement again would have been inappropriate;
> Bucky's version has the potential to neatly sidestep that. However,
> it's worth noting that should we wish to counter-scam, we could either
> (a) (with various players' cooperation) have the CotC delay assigning
> the case and have judges recuse themselves in order to keep this case
> unjudged until June 22nd; or
> (b) (without it) simply appeal it two weeks after it's judged, which
> is unlikely to result in a final judgement before June 22nd, and argue
> that "judgement has not already been reached" refers to an
> unappealable judgement.
Got it. Seems like an easy counter argument though:
An event that could not yet have happened is not "substantially" the same
as one that could have. That has some measure of common sense, and
has some precedent too (eg no pre-objecting , as an event which might
not ever happen has no "substance" to it).
