Denying people between the ages of 16 and 17 years the opportunity to vote is irrational.

-

Voting is considered to be one of the fundamental rights of people in human society. In countries such as Australia, Belgium and Bolivia it is mandatory for every person within the age of voting to cast their vote on Election Day. With the exception of countries such as Austria, Brazil, Bolivia and Cuba where the minimum age of voting is 16 years, the minimum age of voting in most of the countries of the world including United States of America, United Kingdom, France and China is 18 years. There is no upper age limit to voting in all these countries except in the Holy See where Cardinals over 80 years of age are barred from voting for a new pope. This has raised the debate about whether it is sensible to prevent people between 16 and 17 year of age from voting.

The main reason often given for not allowing people between the ages of 16 and 17 years to vote is that people in this age group are not matured enough to make the right decision about voting. Research has shown that the brain of people between 16 and 17 years of age is not fully developed within this period. In addition, at the age of 17 years people are yet to experience a lot of things in life including positive and negative experiences. It is assumed that this lack of brain maturity and adequate life experience makes it difficult for people between 16 and 17 years of age to reason properly and more likely for them to be swayed by astute politicians to make the wrong choices. Consequently people between 16 and 17 years of age are barred from exercising their right to vote.

Although they are not permitted to vote at the age of 17 years due to so-called immaturity, people at the age of 17 years are allowed to hold a licence for driving vehicles. As recognised by adults with driving licence, driving a vehicle is demanding and among other things, involves the ability to make wise decisions at critical moments. Any attempt to make the wrong decision or judgment at a critical point of driving can lead to serious consequences including the loss of lives and serious injuries. Unlike driving, voting does not involve making life and death decisions. Any person within the age of voting regardless of whether the person is frail and sick or with some memory impairments can cast his or her vote providing he or she can walk to the polling station on an election day. It is not rational therefore that people under the age of 17 years are allowed to participate in driving that involves making life and death decisions but are prevented from participating in voting which does not involve making such challenging judgments.

It is also nonsensical that teenagers between the ages of 16 and 17 are not allowed to vote but are included in the age of criminal responsibility. If they are suspected of any involvement in criminal activities people between the ages of 16 and 17 years are processed through the criminal justice system as suspects just like any older adults suspected of participating in criminal activities. The rationale is that people within this age group are matured enough to distinguish between morality and immorality, criminality and non-criminality, and have the ability to choose whether to commit crimes and suffer the consequences.

If they are assumed to have this ability to make decisions regarding good and evil and punish for making the wrong choices, people between the ages of 16 and 17 years can also make wise choices when casting their vote and should be given the opportunity to do so. Otherwise, they should not be included in the category of people within the age of criminal responsibility but be included in the category of people within the age of Doli Incapax , which is the age of non criminal responsibility that applies to people under the age of 10 years.

So far there are no justifiable reasons for depriving people between the ages of 16 and 17 years the opportunity to exercise their right to vote. If people within this age group are allowed to perform more difficult tasks and life changing activities than voting they should be allowed to cast their vote.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Spanish Dog Fouling Law: Are Spanish Politicians Pursuing The Wrong Agenda?

-
Image
 Dog fouling Spain has some of the strictest laws regarding pets possession in Europe. One of its laws governing animal possession in Spain, for example, bans having exotic creatures as pets and requires dog, cat and ferret owners to declare their animals to the authority within three months of bringing them into the country. Until recently, however, Spain has no law nor sanction for failure to clean up after dog fouling in public places. It was up to dog owners whether to clean up such mess. This has now changed following the introduction of the dog fouling law. The new law states that the fine for any person failing to clean up after his or her dog fouling in a public place such as a park or kids play ground should be 1500 euros. The rationale for this legislation is to deter dog owners from leaving their dogs messing up public places such as parks. Regular visitors to parks can testify how the sight of such dog foul can be an eyesore. However, asking dog owners wh
Read more

Social Media Networks: Calls For Tighter Regulations

-
One of the most fascinating technological inventions of the twenty first century is the development of social media networks such as YouTube, Twitter, and Face book. These social media networks make it possible for people to meet new people and make friends, locate old friends and family members, or to form a relationship that can result in marriage. They also provide a platform in the form of advertising for conducting businesses. Despite these benefits provided by the social media networks certain things can go awfully wrong on the networks. The most recent example of how the social media network can be turned into a weapon of criminality is the case last week involving threatening rape and murder messages sent to a number of British women on Twitter. Feminists are attempting to use this incident to rally for support for tighter regulations on activities being conducted within social media networks. Is it possible to control activities within these networks? Having legislat
Read more

Marketing Tricks: How Many Times Have You Fallen Victim?

-
Image
 Fat free food Whereas business owners call them marketing strategies, none business owners regard them as marketing tricks. Regardless of what you like to call them, businesses cannot survive without marketing tricks. Marketing tricks are the flywheel that keeps businesses engine running. We tend not to be concerned about them because of our perception that we are familiar with them and can avoid them. However, a careful look at the marketing tricks used by businesses will reveal that many of us have fallen victims of them in the past and can still fall victim of the malpractice in future. Let us consider two of these popular tricks used in supermarkets. The first marketing trick used by retailers is relating to the slogan “75% reduced fat”. Items labelled 75% reduced fat are often displayed on supermarket shelves. Some of us who are conscious of our health tend to go for them to avoid consuming excess fat. Excess fat in the body is considered to be a risk factor for
Read more