Keith's "Justice" is fucking dumb

[as1eeponatrain]

start owning guns in your country and then we can have a rational conversation.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by orion549

How about this for proportionality. If you get caught doing a minor crime, bullet to the head. Quick. But the more violent the crime, the more "remote" the shot. So by the time you get to rape or murder of a child, you're looking at bullets in the arms and legs and you're left to bleed out over several days. That's what I'd call proportionality.

I believe I'm thinking far more practical. It's not a movie; it's an existence free of worry that you've earned.

[orion549]

Originally Posted by as1eeponatrain

start owning guns in your country and then we can have a rational conversation.

Oh, we own guns here, per capita about the same as in the US. It's just we don't have as many idiots that use them on each other.

Remember, Canada has the "honour" of hosting the first school shooting in the western world. We have guns, just not as much gun crime, which would be one of the things Keith's Justice would be trying to stop anyways, so stop complaining.

I think the line should be that you country should stop using guns so willy-nilly, and We will have rational converstation with you

I believe I'm thinking far more practical. It's not a movie; it's an existence free of worry that you've earned.

I would agree, but if you HAVE to concede something for the "proportional punishment" argument, I would say this is as far as I would go. But it's not Ben's Justice, it's Keith's Justice, so if we can't make that adjustment, then I guess we can't.

[Preston Buttons]

Originally Posted by Newsy

This whole thread is disregarded. Of course you don't agree. You're canadian. Notice I didn't even capitalize the C. That's how much I don't respect your country.

Don't pin him on us.

[revenant]

Originally Posted by MalcolmSmith

Who is to determine if one crime is more severe or consequential than another? The justness of Keith's justice is that it treats everyone and every offense with complete balance and equanimity. If you, or anyone, are caught red-handed, breaking any law, you die. What's fairer than that? No racism, no classism, no sexism, just the breath of fresh air that is... sudden death.

And if your de jure proportionality is so essential, so fundamental, why does it de facto not exist? What about the crack vs. powered cocaine debate? Madoff's crime is HUGE. Should he be tortured? Flayed alive? If proportionality is so great, why do we have such a high incarceration rate? Are all of the sentences too low to effect deterrence? Ah ha! Maybe the proportionality of Keith's justice, in effectively eliminating crime, zeroing out the crime rate, is the most human, most fair, most just? The point of Keith's justice is that a lack of adequate proportionality is the problem. There is a fatal flaw (no pun intended) with Keith's justice, but it has nothing to do with the myth of proportionality.

Who is to determine which crime is more severe?
The legislature that makes laws based on our societal values/morals/norms same as it is right now.

The justness of Keith's Law is that it treats everyone with balance and equanimity?
I've already explained why having the same punishment for all offenses is fundamentally unjust and cannot ever be considered justice. Feel free to re-read my post or so some learning on sentencing during your free time if you still require clarification.

Why does it de facto not exist?
Because trying to implement proportionality is incredibly difficult and we're only humans who make mistakes. People try their best to make just laws but the system is not perfect even as it strives for continuous improvement. Also, the severity of crimes is subjective and that affects the outcome.

Should you be tortured or flayed alive for a huge crime?
Do you really need me to answer this dumb question. Proportionality is not the ONLY principle of sentencing. It is still tempered by human rights and other considerations.

Are all of the sentences too low to effect deterrence?
Haha, I don't know - better people than I have written 30+ page paper on the topic. Maybe the sentences are too low. Maybe we need somewhat tougher sentences for serious crimes, but Keith's Law takes it 10 steps too far into the realm of ridiculousness.

[revenant]

Originally Posted by picard102

No it does not, what is proportional and isn't is subjective.

Of course proportionality is subjective, I've never said that it's not. The fact that it's subjective is why some mistakes are made along the way, but it's a balancing act that the legislature has to do because it cannot be avoided. Nonetheless, it doesn't change the fact that part of the very definition of justice is proportionality between a crime and its punishment. As I said, it's something every system of law that strives for justice attempts to do.

[garrym13]

Originally Posted by revenant

I don't know if this topic was already beat to death here on the forums, but I wanted to chime in and add something I haven't heard anyone else say to Keith on the show. Specifically, if Keith ever happens to read this thread, I wanted to explain to him why so many people react to Keith's Law by saying "Even for littering?" And it's not because everyone has to litter so fucking bad....

Otherwise it'd be pretty hard to respect anything he has to say - kinda how Keith struggles with respecting Spooky after hearing that Spooky thinks Wanted is a good movie.

How can you have been a member here this long and just start to reveal your ignorance? Also did you like Wanted? If so never mind answering the first question.

[Bucho]

Originally Posted by revenant

... better people than I have written 30+ page paper on the topic.

Right, and another better person than you has explained why his justice would make a positive difference in the world in 30+ shows. Why do people try to bag him when all he wants is less crime, slumdogs treated with respect and proper blow jobs in porn instead of retarded gagging-on-cocks bullshit?

This fuckin' world.

[revenant]

Originally Posted by Keith

Why don't you bring up the housing conversation in 2010?

Fuck you. YOU'RE dumb.


You think about My Justice before you litter, and then you don't litter. What a shame.

But no, I know you've never littered and you tip 5,000%.


How dare you.

I know it's quite late, sorry Keith. My original post is something I've always thought whenever the topic was brought up on the show - especially the "even for littering" argument. Most people realize that it's unjust, they just can't quite articulate why.

Haha, if you must know I have littered in the past, but I generally don't these days. I'm one of those recycling hippies who stores little pieces of paper in his pockets until I get home so that I can recycle them. And what I can't recycle I throw away in the garbage.

I tip 15%.

I'm really sorry for the criticism Keith. It hurts me because I love your show and I like you. But what I said is true and your law is pretty dumb, and if you honestly believe in it, then I'm sorry but you're dumb also. It's ok, I do understand the background that you come from and that you're not very educated.

[DaveNJ]

Originally Posted by revenant

Who is to determine which crime is more severe?
The legislature that makes laws based on our societal values/morals/norms same as it is right now.

The justness of Keith's Law is that it treats everyone with balance and equanimity?
I've already explained why having the same punishment for all offenses is fundamentally unjust and cannot ever be considered justice. Feel free to re-read my post or so some learning on sentencing during your free time if you still require clarification.

Why does it de facto not exist?
Because trying to implement proportionality is incredibly difficult and we're only humans who make mistakes. People try their best to make just laws but the system is not perfect even as it strives for continuous improvement. Also, the severity of crimes is subjective and that affects the outcome.

Should you be tortured or flayed alive for a huge crime?
Do you really need me to answer this dumb question. Proportionality is not the ONLY principle of sentencing. It is still tempered by human rights and other considerations.

Are all of the sentences too low to effect deterrence?
Haha, I don't know - better people than I have written 30+ page paper on the topic. Maybe the sentences are too low. Maybe we need somewhat tougher sentences for serious crimes, but Keith's Law takes it 10 steps too far into the realm of ridiculousness.

It's not Keith's Law, it's Keith's Justice.

Keith's Justice is a different model of the principles of justice. Your principles of justice require proportionality. Keith's do not. The laws that follow under Keith's Justice derive from a completely new model of justice.

His justice is simultaneously more fair and more harsh than modern principles allow. However, presently our subjective justice system is rife with unfairness. Keith's system is not. It is inherently egalitarian in nature, and totally fair. The thief, rapist, and murderer of any gender or race are all on the same level.

The concept of killing someone for littering only seems unjust in the context of our present normative values of justice. By adopting new values our opinion on the implementation of things like Keith's Justice would inherently change.

Calling someone uneducated just makes you sound like a prick Revenant. But then, I understand where you come from geographically, so it's okay.