==============================  CFJ 1871  ==============================

    If a judge makes the right judgement but for the wrong reasons, then
    e has made an inappropriate judgement.


Caller:                                 G.

Judge:                                  Zefram
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by G.:                           15 Jan 2008 01:23:22 GMT
Assigned to Zefram:                     15 Jan 2008 01:30:25 GMT
Judged FALSE by Zefram:                 18 Jan 2008 16:43:56 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

The language for appropriateness of judgements in R591 and R1504
states in general that "Judgement X is appropriate if Y".  If Y is
wrongly specified or unreasonable (as revealed by an appeal), but
another "right and or reasonable" argument (Y2) would also lead to
X, should X as initially delivered be described as appropriate,
inappropriate, or is the question meaningless for that judgement?
(I have no particular prejudice here).


Caller's Evidence:

Rule 591/23 (Power=1.7)
Inquiry Cases

      There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case.
      An inquiry case's purpose is to determine the veracity of a
      particular statement.  An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any
      first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement
      to be inquired into.

      The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
      case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one
      person from assignment as judge of the case.

      An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is
      always applicable.  The valid judgements for this question are:

      * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and
        logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated

      * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically
        true at the time the inquiry case was initiated

      * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically
        undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately
        described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry
        case was initiated

      * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at
        the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the

      * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or
        too vague, or if the information available to the judge is
        insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and
        UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as
        to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute
        insufficiency of information for this purpose

      The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the
      reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play
      (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the
      veracity of the statement.  The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to
      annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case


Judge Zefram's Arguments:

The rules that define valid judgements for particular types of judicial
question are clear that the judgements are such things as "FALSE",
"SLIPPERY" and "CHOKEY for ten days".  That is, "FALSE" (for example) is
the entirety of one of the possible judgements for questions on veracity.
"FALSE" is appropriate in a specified set of circumstances, namely when
"the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry
case was initiated" (rule 591).

The reasoning that is used by a judge does not form part of the judgement.
Constructively, there is no room for such additions in the definitions
of valid judgements.  Furthermore, there are rules that make specific
distinction between judgement and reasoning.  Rule 591's final paragraph
begins "The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the
reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide ...".

Thus appropriateness of a judgement is a feature of the judgement,
not of the reasoning used to reach it.  The appropriateness criteria
for judgements vary, but none of them makes any reference to the
judge's reasoning.  In no case does the appropriateness of a judgement
intensionally depend on the reasoning used by a judge in the case.
(A specially-crafted CFJ whose subject matter circularly refers to
the judge's reasoning could make the appropriateness of a judgement
extensionally dependent on that reasoning, but I interpret the statement
in this CFJ as referring only to intensional definition.)  I therefore
judge CFJ 1871 FALSE.

If a judge makes an appropriate judgement but with poor reasoning, this is
an unsatisfactory situation that requires remedy.  The appropriate remedy
is an appeal.  If the appeal judge is satisfied of the appropriateness of
the judgement, then e is entitled to judge AFFIRM, with commentary that
makes clear the inadequacy of the prior judge's reasoning.  Rule 911
now makes formal provision for this situation with its concept of a
concurring opinion.

An appeal judge is not obliged to determine appropriateness of the
prior judgement with finality.  Faulty reasoning of the prior judge is
likely to result in serious doubt over the appropriateness of the prior
judgement, regardless of whether that judgement was actually appropriate.
Such doubt is grounds for an appeal judgement of REMAND or REASSIGN.
Under the no-longer-extant VC system, the prior judge would in these
cases be penalised, not necessarily for inappropriateness of judgement but
for failure to make a sufficiently convincing case for appropriateness.