Contradictory Messages

[spen666]

In a recent thread, there was discussion of the giving of reduced sentences in Scotland to those under the age of 25 (rather than 18 as in England at present)

https://ncap.cyclechat.net/threads/...rvice-for-raping-a-then-13-year-old-girl.477/


Many on that thread supported this by arguing that those under 25 were not as mature and were unable to be held to account the same as someone older

How does that stance/ position fit in with the proposal to reduce the voting age to 16?

On the one hand we seem to be saying people 18-25 are not mature enough to be held fully responsible for their criminal actions, but then saying those 16-18 are mature enough to decide the future direction of the country for everyone else.

Not mature enough to be responsible for yourself, but mature enough to decide the future for others?

There seems to be an apparent disconnect between the two situations

 

[Bromptonaut]

The voting age in Scotland, other than in Westminster Elections which is a reserved matter, is (I think) already 16.

Personally I don't see any contradiction between a policy which tries to divert young offenders away from gaol and letting 16 year olds have the vote.

MAking a 16yo personally responsible for the future of others, eg as FM or whatever, would be a long step too far but allowing some influence over their own futures in elections is at least worth thinking about.

 

[Ian H]

16yr olds can serve in the armed forces.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

16yr olds can serve in the armed forces.

Only with parents permission and not in a combat role.

 

[Bromptonaut]

Only with parents permission and not in a combat role.

What does "not in a combat role" mean in practice?

 

[AuroraSaab]

Not on active service, I guess, not stationed abroad perhaps.

Perhaps part of the voting thing is that young people are contributing to society, could be working and paying tax, and so should have a say in representation in parliament. The prison thing is more for their own protection and to acknowledge the impulsive nature of much crime amongst young offenders due to immaturity. Additionally, a long sentence for a young offender has more consequences than a vote made impulsively, which even if all under 25's voted impulsively would have a limited effect.

The 'up to 25' rule on more lenient sentencing is nuts though. Huge difference between a 24 year old and a 17 year old.

 

[Bromptonaut]

The 'up to 25' rule on more lenient sentencing is nuts though. Huge difference between a 24 year old and a 17 year old.

But the sentencing Judge or, this being Scotland Sheriff, presumably has the option to reflect that difference.

 

[AuroraSaab]

A quick Google re Scotland says guidelines say judges should take an individualistic approach but prioritise rehabilitation over incarceration. Gives an individual judge quite a bit of leeway then.

 

[Ian H]

What does "not in a combat role" mean in practice?

And, if they join at 16 they are committed for 6yrs min.

 

[Bromptonaut]

A quick Google re Scotland says guidelines say judges should take an individualistic approach but prioritise rehabilitation over incarceration. Gives an individual judge quite a bit of leeway then.

Which they should do anyway?

 

[Xipe Totec]

If you're old enough to work & pay tax, get married & reproduce, join the miltary & be shot on someone else's orders then you are old enough to vote.

To say: "On the one hand we seem to be saying people 18-25 are not mature enough to be held fully responsible for their criminal actions, but then saying those 16-18 are mature enough to decide the future direction of the country for everyone else" is frankly hysterical hyperbole.

In Scotland 16 & 17 year olds were first allowed to vote in the 2014 referendum. Engagement was high - over 80% registered and 75% actually voted, of whom 75% voted yes. Yes was, as you may remember, defeated 45% to 55%, partly because the number of 16 & 17 year olds registered represented only 1.8% of Scotland's electorate.

It's a bloody shame they didn't get to "decide the futute direction of the country for everyone else".

 

[Craig the cyclist]

What does "not in a combat role" mean in practice?

It means you won't be going to war to fight.

And, if they join at 16 they are committed for 6yrs min.

Are you suggesting that at 16 someone won't be mature enough to make that decision?

 

[Ian H]

It means you won't be going to war to fight.

Are you suggesting that at 16 someone won't be mature enough to make that decision?

Whereas if they join at 18 or over they are only committed for four.

 

[Craig the cyclist]

Whereas if they join at 18 or over they are only committed for four.

But aren't we talking about younger people and their decision making? If someone is mature enough to vote for a government that will last five years, why shouldn't they be mature enough to decide what to do for a job for 6?

 

[BoldonLad]

16yr olds can serve in the armed forces.

Isn't that what is usually called "whataboutery", on this forum?

Perhaps, they shouldn't be allowed to serve in the armed forces?