Island Life: Are you old enough?
90 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
I was 17 in 1981, and if I'd had the vote I'd have voted for Muldoon. (Mainly to piss off school politial advocate John Campbell)
I can't believe I've admitted that so publicly.
Anyway, let that be a warning to those who want to lower the voting age to people so immature.
-
Rather, I think the anti-enfranchaisers are afraid that, quite rightly, 16 and 17 year olds are going to potentially pursue very different interests to the middle-age, middle-class people who comment on blogs on weekdays,
Oooh, this is far too easy... you mean the very people who couldn't be farked voting in the last round of local body elections in droves? Anyhow, I would note that we don't have compulsory voting in this country, and I don't recall any qualified elector being prosecuted for not being on the electoral roll.
-
I was 17 in 1981, and if I'd had the vote I'd have voted for Muldoon. (Mainly to piss off school politial advocate John Campbell)
I can't believe I've admitted that so publicly.
S'alright. I walked into exams the year before that wearing a vote National button, partly to wind up my liberal teachers. I'd also given the young Labour reps a grilling when they came to pitch to us.
(Which brings back memories of the Social Credit team that came to talk to us and confirmed a great many unflattering stereotypes, satorial and otherwise, about Social Credit people ...)
But the next year, I voted for Ann Hercus and marched against the Tour.
-
I support 16 yr olds getting the vote. Why should they choose who governs them? At 16, one is deemed old enough to choose whether to have sex and yet one is not deemed sensible enough to choose who is going to screw you (for the next 3 years).
-
I really don't buy the old enough to f#@k = old enough to vote arguement.
Kids will do around the back of the bike sheds what kids have always done there. To make it a crime is simply unjust.
As too the logical extention of this suffrage at 16yrs would leave troubled youth in the general prison population.
-
As too the logical extention of this suffrage at 16yrs would leave troubled youth in the general prison population.
Thats a bit of a strain this time of night. What do you mean ?At work today the discussion covered similar points as this thread, except there were a couple of 16-17 year olds making contributions. Which reminded me yet again that media representations of that age group is so often based on disapproval about extreme examples of behaviour. The 'old enough to drive, bonk, parent, pay taxes' came up first. Another was that they are far more media-savvy these days than we were - when they can be bothered engaging with all the hypocrisy.
1978 was the first year I was eligible to vote and did, even though it was by 'special' because I was away for the weekend in another city. Can't say for sure whether I'd have gone to the trouble when I was 16.
-
Paula
Right & ResponsibilitiesIf 16yr olds are deemed mature enough to vote, to be considered adult.
Then what of the flip side, what are the potential down falls?If there is a general considered tidal change that 16 is the new 18, an adult with all of the rights and responsibilities that entails comes into being.
An 18yr old can expect to go into the general prison population from a sentencing judge.
As an 'adult' why would a wayward 16yr out not expect to go into general prison population? -
S'alright. I walked into exams the year before that wearing a vote National button, partly to wind up my liberal teachers. I'd also given the young Labour reps a grilling when they came to pitch to us.
Hum... funny thing is that my father didn't talk to me for six months after he found out I'd joined the National Party, but I've got to admit if I'd turned 18 in 1981, rather than 1990, I couldn't have brought myself to vote for Muldoon. Just couldn't.
-
I think I can live with 16 year olds voting
But we allow that do we then treat them as adults in the legal sense
It would make life easier if we sent all over 16s criminals to adult prisions...not sure if I can live with thatAt the present under 20s have various legal rights that are designed to shelter them from the more silly things they might do
They have an almost automatic right to bail and a right to seperate prisions, cells at the remand level etcIt is interesting that over the generations the age when we are expected to take up adult life (earn a living,build a family, may be marry) is getting later and later but at the same time the legal age to vote and drink is made earlier and earlier
-
An 18yr old can expect to go into the general prison population from a sentencing judge.
As an 'adult' why would a wayward 16yr out not expect to go into general prison population?Excellent argument Michael. Why I remember when women got the vote and we closed down all the Women's prisons. Good enough to vote with the men, good enough to be in the same cells, we said.
-
Point taken.
Women do have rights but are not often burdened with the same responsibilities.
A quick look at sentences for women convicted of violent crimes etc do not often receive anything like the same sentences as men.
Not to mention female on male violence where gender is considered a factor rather than size 100kgs & 6ft vs 70kgs & 5ft.
Best comparison may be in female on female violence vs male on male violence in sentences.
I see Sue Bradfords voting at 16yrs the other side of the coin from Ron Marks Young Offenders (Serious Crimes) Bill to lower the age of criminal responsibility.
Or at least the left handing over leverage to the right by which to enact it.
-
Women do have rights but are not often burdened with the same responsibilities.
WTF?
-
Most serious sentence in 1998
Men 48629 & Women 9203Custodial Sentences
Men 6481 & Women 507Guys get custodial sentences at a 3:1 ratio compared to Gals.
So Yes Women have Rights but with reduced Responsibilities.
That said, Sues Bill will help ease Rons Bill through parliment
-
I think the reason why those under 20 year olds are kept away from the "adults" is more to do with how those over 20 treat those under 20. NOT because the under 20s feel they deserve special treatment or aren't "responsible" enough to deal with adult prison conditions.
The greatest worry I have as a teacher is the distraction every three years as schools potentially turn into mini political battle fields while we are trying to get the kids their bloody credits.
-
Guys get custodial sentences at a 3:1 ratio compared to Gals.
So Yes Women have Rights but with reduced Responsibilities.
Thanks for earlier explanation. But are you sure about this 'fewer responsibilities' ? I'd have thought women get fewer custodial sentences because they have far more responsibilities, as well as the fact that far fewer prison beds are available for females, way way below a 3:1.Doesn't Ron Mark's Bill call for a 12 year age of criminal responsibility? Do you seriously think that will squeak through ?
-
think the reason why those under 20 year olds are kept away from the "adults" is more to do with how those over 20 treat those under 20.
Exactly, and look at how WE are - gently - rubbishing 16 year olds in this thread. Noone really thinks this Bill will succeed, but it has got a few discussions going, and for may teens it certainly is a novel idea that rights come with responsibilities. And of course a lot of people would say many parents could do with civics education too. The alcohol age is a red herring. Most youngsters I come into contact with would rather have things put into a realistic context, eg. decriminalise and regulate pot, even jack up the drinking age, and would be happy if defensive driving was a prerequisite for driving instead of just an option to reduce the learner period. It is also surprising how many have read things like this way before their parents have http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/vlr/vlrtoc.htm and this http://www.alternet.org/story/21818I will go away for a while now, you are probably all tired at my lack of polsci polish, I did speech and language therapy at uni (grin)
-
Doesn't Ron Mark's Bill call for a 12 year age of criminal responsibility? Do you seriously think that will squeak through ?
Kind of.
Ron Mark's bill aims to lower the age of youth criminal responsibility to 12. That is, the age at which children can be brought before the youth court.
It doesn't affect the age of adult criminal responsibility - 17.
-
Paula-
I do fear our societies need for the specticle of punishment. We are moving to harsher and longer sentences all the time. Younger prisoners just follows that same trend.Men are made more Responsible for their actions but are held less Responsible for their children by the Justice Department.
And this is liberation? No - this is the cycle continuing.
We are assuming children are involved here. I think the gender bias is greater than that.More info about Pot needs to be out there (he he).
There hasn't been a mass shooting in NZ without it!
It wasn't an axe murder it was a Rasta Ritual?
Yamis -
I think of the stupid sh!t I did as a youth and the path that it could have led to if caught.I don't see prison as an answer to anything but as a last resort, a protection for society. I don't see it as a place for kids or the vast majority of inmate for that matter.
-
Why do we all want our children to grow up so fast anyway?
-
That's easy Jackie.
From playing dress up to sneaking into pubs it's what kids do.
They can't be blamed for trying it on, or wanting to vote.
As GST & youth wages are all taxes the American Revolution "No Taxation without Representaion" has some logic to it.
Here's a thought youth wages stay but without being taxed. -
Why do we all want our children to grow up so fast anyway?
Whilst I agree with you, there are many that don't, and will probably think you're patronising to refer to them as children.
I have difficulty in arguing why 16 y.o.'s shouldn't be able to vote, other than it just seems too young to me. Others disagree, and feel they're old enough. What I can't fathom is why 16 and not 17 or 15? If you argue in favour of 16 isn't your point equally valid for 15? ("You can drive a car at 15 ...")
I can't help wondering if we're going to have this discussion again in 10/20 years time, when 14 is the new 16.
I doubt Sue Bradford will get the same cross-party support on this as she did for the 'Anti-smacking' Bill. I think some of the other parties will knock her back just for the sake of knocking her back. Gotta keep 'em at the back of the bus. Nuthin' worse than an uppity Greenie.
-
will probably think you're patronising to refer to them as children.
Well, aren't you legally a child at 16? Really, the way I see it, 18 is a good age for people to start voting. It's also I believe a good age for people to start having sex in my humble opinion. But that's another thing entirely. Children having children.......
-
Voting is a privilege. To give it to people, most of whom as has already been pointed out, would not appreciate it, nor bother to participate in the democratic process, seems a little wasteful to me. At 17, maybe people are old enough to vote. But why fix something that isn't broken? I remember the first time I was able to vote was in 1984 - when I was 20. I was thrilled. I had been involved in the Springbok marches in 81 as a 17 year old, I had political opinions, and I was very aware of the responsibility involved with the voting process. I'm not patronising 16 years olds at all when I say it just isn't old enough. It's not old enough to do most things. I repeat, why oh why are we pushing kids to grow up so early? Let them enjoy as much carefree time as they possibly can. God, we spend enough time as adults dealing with the hard stuff. Leave the kids alone.
-
Sixteen's OK, it'd go some way towards offsetting the greying demographic bulge. Not fourteen, though - at fourteen they still know everything.
Nevertheless,:
-
Joe
With regard to "First Teen Prez" Anyone can be elected this is not limited by age - only voting is limited.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.