fozy tornip
fozympotent
Let's ask Thompson and Venables.
Contradictory Messages
- Thread starter spen666
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Let's ask Thompson and Venables.
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
Well, apparently 'boomers ' end at '64 and 'gen x' start at '65 and I've seen a photo of you!
glasgowcyclist
Über Member
You are comparing apples and coconuts here.
Voting is a civic act, criminal acts are, well, criminal and it’s not (yet) a crime to vote.
While young people are still developing and maturing, we generally allow them some leeway and understanding in the choices they make. When those choices result in a crime being committed, they still face the judicial process but with due consideration being given to their age before passing sentence. They will indeed be held ‘responsible for their criminal actions’ and the judge’s sentence may take their level of maturity into consideration or not, since this is only a guideline and the full range of sentencing always remains available.
So, people under 25 who are convicted of a crime are still held responsible, as evidenced by their conviction, it’s only the sentence that might be varied depending on their assessed maturity.
Are you in favour of aligning the ages for criminal and civic responsibility?
Ian H
Guru
You do seem to be obsessed with the ages of female posters on here.
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
Who was first to mention “boomers”?
Rusty Nails
Country Member
There's an awful lot of othering based on unchangeable (well mostly) physical characteristics on this forum.
Some is fine, some not, apparently.
Some is fine, some not, apparently.
Mr Celine
Well-Known Member
Before dismissing the OP out of hand I thought I'd cast my mind back to the days of my youth, when I was aged between 16 and 25.
The first general election at which I was eligible to vote was 1983. At the time I was doing an economics module at uni and could have written an essay on the lilkely economic consequences of the policies then espoused by either of the two main parites. (These studies were interupted by the lecturer, Dr Norman Godman, announcing one afternoon that a general election had been called and as he was a candidate this would be the last time we saw him).
I had no problem coming to a rational decision over how to cast my vote.
1983 was also the last time a woman poured a pint of beer over my head. Whilst I would still argue that this was unjustified, had I been more mature at the time I would have realised that this outcome was a highly likely consequence of my actions.
So as far as I'm concerned the OP is talking bollocks
The first general election at which I was eligible to vote was 1983. At the time I was doing an economics module at uni and could have written an essay on the lilkely economic consequences of the policies then espoused by either of the two main parites. (These studies were interupted by the lecturer, Dr Norman Godman, announcing one afternoon that a general election had been called and as he was a candidate this would be the last time we saw him).
I had no problem coming to a rational decision over how to cast my vote.
1983 was also the last time a woman poured a pint of beer over my head. Whilst I would still argue that this was unjustified, had I been more mature at the time I would have realised that this outcome was a highly likely consequence of my actions.
So as far as I'm concerned the OP is talking bollocks
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
Do I?
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
You do seem obsessed with being a boring, argumentative old fart but there you go.
multitool
Shaman
D
Deleted member 28
Guest
Say it as I see it.
OP
OP
spen666
Active Member
Perhaps if they are not considered mature enough to be fully responsible for their actions, their votes should only be counted as a % of the vote of someone considered mature?
The contradiction
I'm talking bollocks to say there is an apparent contradiction in factual situation
On one hand we have a movement to give votes to 16 year old. (Clearly they are deemed mature enough to take part in a democratic process)
On the other hand we are saying those under 25 are not to be treated as garshly for crimes they commit. ( The argument being they are not as mature as older people)
That is not bollocks. It is what is happening.
There is an apparent contradiction in saying u18 year old are both as mature as older people and that u25s are not as nature as older people.
Perhaps if you able to have a debate, instead of resorting to abuse because someone says something you disagree with, then we could deal with this apparent contradiction and why it arises
glasgowcyclist
Über Member
But they are being held responsible for their criminal actions. Surely, as a lawyer, you are familiar with the concept of mitigation in sentencing consideration?
glasgowcyclist
Über Member
This is not what is happening.
Judges are being given the option to take into consideration the convicted person’s level of cognitive and emotional maturity. Full sentencing powers remain available in all cases.
Bromptonaut
Rohan Man
- Location
- Bugbrooke, Northants
@spen666 is seeing this as a single binary switch over two things which are, in reality, different.
One is a test of being mature enough to cast a vote. At 16 you can have sex and, at least until recently get married. You can have a job including in the forces where, while you cannot be sent to 'the front' you'll presumably learn how to use weapons including with live rounds. To me it seems at least arguable that in that case you can have an influence over who represents you in various tiers of government.
The other is about how society responds if you engage in criminal behaviour. Scotland, as I said in the original thread, has long dealt more rationally and humanely with 'Juvenile' offending. More training and rehabilitation, less revenge and punishment. If the science is that there are better options than time in gaol for those under 25 then we should follow that.
Different situations, different facts and, therefore, different conclusions.
One is a test of being mature enough to cast a vote. At 16 you can have sex and, at least until recently get married. You can have a job including in the forces where, while you cannot be sent to 'the front' you'll presumably learn how to use weapons including with live rounds. To me it seems at least arguable that in that case you can have an influence over who represents you in various tiers of government.
The other is about how society responds if you engage in criminal behaviour. Scotland, as I said in the original thread, has long dealt more rationally and humanely with 'Juvenile' offending. More training and rehabilitation, less revenge and punishment. If the science is that there are better options than time in gaol for those under 25 then we should follow that.
Different situations, different facts and, therefore, different conclusions.