Age of Consent Paradox

[Berzerker]

On 60 Minutes they did a story on a 16 year old girl who was murdered by MS 13 (short for some big latin gang) for informing on the gang after she was threatened with prosecution for witnessing a murder and not reporting it, i.e., accessory after the fact I guess is what they had on her).

I understand she was 16 when this all happened, so, should the state be allowed to coerce minors into becoming informants in exchange for leniency or some other reward?
I guess since she was a member of the gang her 16 doesn't reflect her life experience, but this looks like a double standard by the state. A 16 year old cant vote but they can effectively be hired by the state as an informant in such a dangerous situation.

[Jon Miller]

age is a gradual thing

you can drive at 16

vote at 18

drink at 21

JM

[Asher]

You can drive at 14 (learners)

Sex any adult you want at 16

Vote at 18

Drink at 18

[Sava]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
age is a gradual thing

yeah I agree

each day you are a little bit older

[CrONoS]

If i'm right:
You can go in army at 16.
But you can't vote at 16....

.... you can even became a pornstar at 18 years old... I'm 25 years old and i'm pretty sure many girl at 18 years are too young to take a rationnal choice by participating in this industry(yeah meat industry).

But to return to your subject:
What is bad in this story: the state(police) look like they was unable to protect her. Do they try to protect her, by separating her to his parents? Or any other way? I think that's disturbing....

On another subject but close to the subject:
Again, if i'm right. Locke was defining citizenship by having a title of property over land(or anything valuble). It's a interesting idea... not applicable in our modern world. But interesting in the way he see who can participate in the political world and who not. Since for him, he look the political world like a contract between owners to protect what they are owning...

see ya

[OzzyKP]

Re: Age of Consent Paradox

Originally posted by Berzerker
A 16 year old cant vote but they can effectively be hired by the state as an informant in such a dangerous situation.

A 16 year old can also pay taxes, get charged as an adult for a crime, decide to drop out of school, and up till a few months ago was able to be executed.

Yet not vote.

Yes this is a very glaring contradiction and double standard.

Maturing is indeed a gradual and uneven process, but our current age restrictions are a reflection of political decisions, not medically or ethically sound. You are fully as rational as an adult at 14 (perhaps a bit younger), yet you can't vote for another 4 years, or drink for another 7

[DaShi]

I'm still not a rational adult and they let me vote. Whoohoo!

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by cronos_qc
On another subject but close to the subject:
Again, if i'm right. Locke was defining citizenship by having a title of property over land(or anything valuble). It's a interesting idea... not applicable in our modern world. But interesting in the way he see who can participate in the political world and who not. Since for him, he look the political world like a contract between owners to protect what they are owning...

see ya

I believe looking to some form of social contract theory is a good lense through which to look at this idea. We turn over a portion of our rights to the government so we can protect the rest of our rights. That primordial and theoretical contract our ancestors signed on our behalf must be continually renewed by us through our consent. Consent either by not moving or by voting.

For this "contract" to be valid, that ability to consent must be offered. For a government to be just, it must have the consent of the governed.

Youth are never given that ability to consent (legally prevented from moving, and legally prevented from voting), yet the government's rules still apply to them. This, according to Jefferson and many others, is unjust.

So the real question is, does the person feel the weight of law? If laws apply to them, then they must have a way to consent.

So then the matter is simple. If a toddler kills someone, then that person isn't going to jail. The law doesn't really apply to a 3 year old. The law DOES apply to a 16 year old. If a 16 year old kills someone, that 16 year old will be punished (and rightly so). So if a person, whatever their age or status, is under the law, he must be over the law as well.

[Sava]

Re: Re: Age of Consent Paradox

Originally posted by OzzyKP


A 16 year old can also pay taxes, get charged as an adult for a crime, decide to drop out of school, and up till a few months ago was able to be executed.

Yet not vote.

Yes this is a very glaring contradiction and double standard.

Maturing is indeed a gradual and uneven process, but our current age restrictions are a reflection of political decisions, not medically or ethically sound. You are fully as rational as an adult at 14 (perhaps a bit younger), yet you can't vote for another 4 years, or drink for another 7

I agree.

This is unfair.

To make it more fair, we should take the right to vote away from more people.

That way we aren't discriminating against kids.

OZZYKP FOR PREZ

[Jon Miller]

I would be pro 16 yearolds being able to vote

JM

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I would be pro 16 yearolds being able to vote

JM

[joncha]

The voting age should be set at Jaguar's +1.

[Sava]

Re: Re: Age of Consent Paradox

Originally posted by OzzyKP

You are fully as rational as an adult at 14 (perhaps a bit younger), yet you can't vote for another 4 years, or drink for another 7

Dude. I totally disagree. 14 is not even close to being an adult. Why are you obsessed with wanting kids to be adults so young?

Kids should have more time to be kids. 18 is fine. If you have to worry about voting and getting more responsibilities as an adult, then you lose more of what makes you a kid. That would suck.

Kids are not mature enough to make decisions like that at 14. I remember what it was like at 14. You are not mature yet physically. People don't even stop maturing until maybe even 17 or so in some cases. It even continues into your early 20's as you mature into a young adult... like 19-22.

But that's why it's important that there be limits to certain things... like having sex, getting married, drinking, buying cigarettes, voting, enlisting in the military. Because you aren't mature enough to make those decisions... enough if you think you are, you aren't. It may be arbitrary, and it's not perfect, but it's the best thing that can be done. And it's the fairest way to do things. And 18 is the best age. Not too old, not too young. You are finished with high school and ready to either go to college or go out and get a job.

But I do think the drinking age should probably be 18.

[Sava]

Originally posted by joncha
The voting age should be set at Jaguar's +1.

[snoopy369]

I think the drinking age should be 25, and the 'adult' age (voting/etc) should be 21 if not 25. I went through four years of college, at a supposedly non-party school (whatever the opposite of party school is, this was supposedly the pinnacle of it) ... and none of the people there should have been drinking.

Of course, I am one of those who venerate the 18th amendment