Keith's Justice Questions

[lizsquiz]

I have trawled the history but can't find answers to the following:

1. What happens to juvenile offenders under Keith's Justice?

2. What about the crazy/mentally challenged? Doesn't society have a responsibility to care for the crazy, desperate and stupid?

[Loki74]

Originally Posted by lizsquiz

I have trawled the history but can't find answers to the following:

1. What happens to juvenile offenders under Keith's Justice?

2. What about the crazy/mentally challenged? Doesn't society have a responsibility to care for the crazy, desperate and stupid?

1) The law applies to all so they would die if caught red-handed
2) Both the retard and their handler would be killed if they are ultimately responsible for the retard.

The whole point of Keith's Justice is that it deals in absolutes... same punishment for any crime and therefore same punishment for every offender.

It reminds me of "A modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift.

[doctorsleep]

I think some people forget that the absoluteness of Keith's justice is that the cop has to catch you RED HANDED. That means that the cop see's you red handed then you are dead.

If you are arrested any other way you go though the normal justice system.

To keep cops from abusing the license to kill they are all wired to cameras that send video to stations around the country for review.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Good job parroting exactly what Keith has said without it being appropriate to the thread.

You didn't help anything, as usual.

[DWarrior]

Originally Posted by Loki74

1) The law applies to all so they would die if caught red-handed
2) Both the retard and their handler would be killed if they are ultimately responsible for the retard.

The whole point of Keith's Justice is that it deals in absolutes... same punishment for any crime and therefore same punishment for every offender.

It reminds me of "A modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift.

You're wrong, and I think Keith would agree with this:

First thing to note is that there would still exist regular law channels, for cases where people weren't caught red handed or in the cases of OP.

1. There would be a minimal age below which no persons would be killed under the law. Clearly a 3-month-old who's throwing his pacifier wouldn't be killed. There would be an established age below which the person is considered a minor (decided at the time the law comes in place, which may or may not be similar to existing laws). Anybody considered a minor under that law would go through regular channels.

2. Currently, persons not of sound mind are not considered responsible for their actions, so they would be exempt from Keith's Justice and would go through regular channels as they do now. However, when Keith gains enough support to institute Keith's Justice, he may also wish to lobby to apply Keith's Justice to the mentally ill without regard for their condition as a form of politically correct eugenics movement.

[Loki74]

Problem is that you are attempting to use logical deductions when dealing with an extreme and exaggerated situation, the only stipulation that was given is that it have to be red handed….

Otherwise it would mean that most cases would go to trial for all types of extenuating circumstances, establishing competency would become a loophole.

An age limit might be doable but was not implied originally, although a 3 year old knows that throwing a pacifier is bad...

Also don't forget that accidentally dropping something is not a crime under this system.

[Cretaceous Bob]

I'm bored by the Keith's Justice business, however:

Originally Posted by lizsquiz

Doesn't society have a responsibility to care for the crazy, desperate and stupid?

Do we, though?

[DWarrior]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

Do we, though?

We don't, but Hitler kinda guilted us into it. Can't gas the retards or we might slip up and get Jews and fags as well.

[DWarrior]

Originally Posted by Loki74

Problem is that you are attempting to use logical deductions when dealing with an extreme and exaggerated situation, the only stipulation that was given is that it have to be red handed….

Otherwise it would mean that most cases would go to trial for all types of extenuating circumstances, establishing competency would become a loophole.

An age limit might be doable but was not implied originally, although a 3 year old knows that throwing a pacifier is bad...

Also don't forget that accidentally dropping something is not a crime under this system.

My post was only talking about red-handed situations. Of course everything else would go through regular channels.

[Cretaceous Bob]

Originally Posted by DWarrior

We don't, but Hitler kinda guilted us into it. Can't gas the retards or we might slip up and get Jews and fags as well.

There's an extremely big difference between gassing every retard and shooting the dangerous ones when they do something harmful.

There is no positive morality in taking money from non-harmful people to keep murderous lunatics alive and well unless you're placing the same value in life that anti-abortion religious folks do.

For example, it has been speculated that an escapee of the Broadmoor Asylum in England was Jack the Ripper. Whether or not that particular bit is true, what is the justice in keeping a potential Jack the Ripper or a real Jack the Ripper alive just because they're inhuman machines incapable of not being murderous?