Should Canada adopt a 15YO law?

[Machjo]

Considering how some of our laws that affect the daily lives of citizens can sometimes be highly complicated, confusing, and convoluted for the average person to understand (not very fair in a democratic country where all are supposed to be equal before the law, and not where lawyers have the upper hand), would it be wise for the government to legally adopt what we might call a 15YO (15-year-old)standard, whereby if it can be reasonably proven that this or that law would be too complicated for the average 15-year-old to understand, then the one accused of violating that law would be exempted from it?

This would certainly force the government to word its laws clearly and precisely yet concisely. I realize that privileged lawyers might feel threatened by such democratization of the law, but then again, is that not how it ought to be?

 

[Machjo]

I'd love to see something like this become an election issue. Imagine the 15YOS (15-year-old-standard) campaign. Lawyers would be terrified. My God, people wouldn't need them anymore. And think of all the hard work they'd put into convoluting the laws so as to make them incomprehensible to anyone but themselves over all these decades and decades. All that work for nothing. What are they going to do once the laws are actually understandable to the common citizen? Democracy's a bitch, isn't it.

 

[Machjo]

Oh my, and imagine law-makers actually having to actually think about how they're going to word their laws so as to make them understandable to the average 15 year old. My god, what horror. They might actually have to go out and have real humans of all ages, some as young as 15, read the law to see if they can actually understand it, and if they can't, then back to the drawing board, flipping through thesauri, brainstorming other ways to reword it, etc. My God, they'd actually have to earn their salary all of a sudden. And even more terrifying is that they'd have to consult ordinary Canadians when wording the law. Oh my, the horror of democratizing the law.

 

[YukonJack]

With our union-dominated education system, where "teachers" care nothing about education, where 15 year olds can barely read, where Generation X clearly says that the X is used for their signature, perhaps the understanding of the law for people with at least a Masters Degree would be a more appropriate benchmark.

 

[lone wolf]

Masters Degree only means "book smart".

 

[Machjo]

With our union-dominated education system, where "teachers" care nothing about education, where 15 year olds can barely read, where Generation X clearly says that the X is used for their signature, perhaps the understanding of the law for people with at least a Masters Degree would be a more appropriate benchmark.

Then I take it that those without a Master's Degree are exempted?

Or maybe such a law would make politicians realize how important it is to improve education so that they can actually pass more complicated laws. By liking the two together, by prohibiting government from passing laws too complicated for the average 15 year old to understand, they'd be forced to improve education if they want their laws to stick in court. Maybe such an incentive is the pressure they need.

 

[Machjo]

Or perhaps an alternative law would be to make laws applicable only to those who can understand them. For example, if a law is passed that only a lawyer can understand, then only lawyers are bound by it. And if the government wants the average worker to be bound that that law, then it must word it so the average worker can understand it. This could include tax laws too by the way. That would certainly incite the government to simplify its tax laws before numerous citizens go to court claiming they can't understand it.

 

[JLM]

Considering how some of our laws that affect the daily lives of citizens can sometimes be highly complicated, confusing, and convoluted for the average person to understand (not very fair in a democratic country where all are supposed to be equal before the law, and not where lawyers have the upper hand), would it be wise for the government to legally adopt what we might call a 15YO (15-year-old)standard, whereby if it can be reasonably proven that this or that law would be too complicated for the average 15-year-old to understand, then the one accused of violating that law would be exempted from it?

This would certainly force the government to word its laws clearly and precisely yet concisely. I realize that privileged lawyers might feel threatened by such democratization of the law, but then again, is that not how it ought to be?

Excellent idea. I think that all text that has legal implications should contain words limited to five letters in length and sentences limited to eight words in length, so there is absolutely no need for the riff raff to get involved.

 

[Machjo]

Excellent idea. I think that all text that has legal implications should contain words limited to five letters in length and sentences limited to eight words in length, so there is absolutely no need for the riff raff to get involved.

Hmmm... well, I was thinking of 15 year old native speakers. I remember when I was fifteen, my command of the English language was not that bad. And judging from many 15-year-olds I've met more recently, they do seem at least capable of critical thinking. Give them some credit at least. I'm not suggesting the law be limited to baby talk, but merely that it not fall into the trap of legalese, or that it become so convoluted that it needs to be printed on a minimum of 40 pages for it to make sense.

 

[darkbeaver]

With our union-dominated education system, where "teachers" care nothing about education, where 15 year olds can barely read, where Generation X clearly says that the X is used for their signature, perhaps the understanding of the law for people with at least a Masters Degree would be a more appropriate benchmark.

They do care about education and they care deeply, they know that they are the gatekeepers and doormen of the elites and that their misinforming and destruction of youth keeps the masses fat stupid and slow. The competition is regulated from the cradle to the grave by the shepherd kings. Machjo ain't the first to suggest comprehensive law reform. The graveyards are full of legal freedom fighters. You'll know you've had a good idea when you're shot for it.

 

[Machjo]

Actually, the idea in the OP reminds me of a law I'd heard about in Japan. I don't know if this is true, but apparently newspapers in Japan are legally bound to limit their vocabulary to that that a 60 year old can understand, thus restricting newer neologisms that they might not be familiar with. The law proposed in the OP is a similar concept I suppose.And since lawmakers are generally older, it's reasonable to suppose that they'll ensure that the wording is such that the older generation can understand it too.

 

[Machjo]

The idea in the OP relates somewhat to the Plain English Campaign:

Plain English Campaign - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JLM]

Hmmm... well, I was thinking of 15 year old native speakers. I remember when I was fifteen, my command of the English language was not that bad. And judging from many 15-year-olds I've met more recently, they do seem at least capable of critical thinking. Give them some credit at least. I'm not suggesting the law be limited to baby talk, but merely that it not fall into the trap of legalese, or that it become so convoluted that it needs to be printed on a minimum of 40 pages for it to make sense.

Yep, I was taking a bit of an extreme position because if you start out that way you generally arrive at something that is reasonable..............:smile:

 

[Machjo]

Overall, I think if you aim at a 15 year old audience, you'll get something fairly reasonable. Their level of the English language is high enough to allow lawyers to still write complex documents, yet low enough to not permit excessive jargon.

 

[AnnaG]

Considering how some of our laws that affect the daily lives of citizens can sometimes be highly complicated, confusing, and convoluted for the average person to understand (not very fair in a democratic country where all are supposed to be equal before the law, and not where lawyers have the upper hand), would it be wise for the government to legally adopt what we might call a 15YO (15-year-old)standard, whereby if it can be reasonably proven that this or that law would be too complicated for the average 15-year-old to understand, then the one accused of violating that law would be exempted from it?

This would certainly force the government to word its laws clearly and precisely yet concisely. I realize that privileged lawyers might feel threatened by such democratization of the law, but then again, is that not how it ought to be?

I'd opt for whatever the age of majority is these days. 15 is a bit too young. Even if they understand the words, the weight of some concepts is still a bit beyond them. But in general, the simpler the better. Complications create loopholes. But, you can't stop there, you would have to make minimum sentences for everything, and make sure that judges have the wherewithall to judge competently and with basically the same standards as each other, too.

 

[Machjo]

I'd opt for whatever the age of majority is these days. 15 is a bit too young. Even if they understand the words, the weight of some concepts is still a bit beyond them. But in general, the simpler the better. Complications create loopholes. But, you can't stop there, you would have to make minimum sentences for everything, and make sure that judges have the wherewithall to judge competently and with basically the same standards as each other, too.

You might be right. The age of majority is 18. However, if my memory serves me right, and from my observations of 15-year-olds today, I was quite capable of critical thought even at the age of fifteen, and wort case scenario, I knew how to use a dictionary; and I get the impression most 15 year olds today are the same.

Also, seeing that 15-year-olds are legally allowed to work and earn an income, they are already affected by a number of laws.

 

[Machjo]

Or I suppose we could use high school graduation as the standard. Laws would have to be written such that an average high school graduate could understand them. This might not necessarily put lawyers out of work, but it would redefine their job. Right now, lawyers are often preoccupied with legal cases involving someone tangled in the web of legalese because he couldn't understand it, trying to hep them get untangled, at cost of course.

This new solution would be more preventative in avoiding legalese in the first place, whereby lawyers would have as a task to find ways of rewording the law so as to prevent people from falling into such legal traps in the first place.

 

[AnnaG]

You might be right. The age of majority is 18. However, if my memory serves me right, and from my observations of 15-year-olds today, I was quite capable of critical thought even at the age of fifteen, and wort case scenario, I knew how to use a dictionary; and I get the impression most 15 year olds today are the same.

Also, seeing that 15-year-olds are legally allowed to work and earn an income, they are already affected by a number of laws.

EVERYONE is affected by a number of laws. The ones I am concerned about are the more serious ones. I don't think a lot of 15 year olds are rapists, murderers, and kidnappers. Not a lot are actually even criminals. A fair bunch have been subject to misdemeanor charges, robbery, B&E, and stuff like that and as such are treated as minors by the courts. Only the ones that commit serious crimes are bumped up into adult courts.

 

[Machjo]

EVERYONE is affected by a number of laws. The ones I am concerned about are the more serious ones. I don't think a lot of 15 year olds are rapists, murderers, and kidnappers. Not a lot are actually even criminals. A fair bunch have been subject to misdemeanor charges, robbery, B&E, and stuff like that and as such are treated as minors by the courts. Only the ones that commit serious crimes are bumped up into adult courts.

I think the average 15 year old can understand what rape, murder, and kidnapping are. They're not that ignorant. However, I'm guessing laws on those issues are likely not so complicated either. Murder is murder no matter how you slice it. Though I suppose there could be confusing with regards to where we draw the line between murder and killing in self defense, or mitigating circumstances, etc. granted.

But I was thinking more about everyday things that affect even law abiding citizens like tax laws, or other such laws. There just seems to be a multitude of laws on that regard.

 

[AnnaG]

I think the average 15 year old can understand what rape, murder, and kidnapping are. They're not that ignorant. However, I'm guessing laws on those issues are likely not so complicated either. Murder is murder no matter how you slice it. Though I suppose there could be confusing with regards to where we draw the line between murder and killing in self defense, or mitigating circumstances, etc. granted.

That wasn't my point at all. I think 5 year olds understand those. My point was that if 15 year olds are clever enough to understand the ramifications and legalese of the more serious acts, then we should drop the age of being tried as an adult (to 15 rather than 17 or whatever it is). But I don't think it'd be good to stick them into adult prisons, in that case. Age of majority would be better and keep the adult court idea as is.

But I was thinking more about everyday things that affect even law abiding citizens like tax laws, or other such laws. There just seems to be a multitude of laws on that regard.

Tax laws. That's a whole different ballgame because it is so complicated even some accountants don't savvy it. In that case, I think a flat tax would solve a lot of problems.
I'm not sure what other laws you'd be referring to.