Should Canada adopt a 15YO law?

[Machjo]

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.

Actually, I would support droppng the age at 15. I think most 15 year olds understand quite well what these crimes entail, their social ramifications, and why they're wrong. At 15, they're old enough to know. They're not as stupid as we think.

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.

Tax laws are the ones that come most to mind, since they seem to be the ones most likely to affect each citizen, though there may be others. Perhaps a flat tax without exceptions for A, B, C, etc. etc. etc. Just have a few basic categories that can fit on one bloody page, the meaning of which is obvious without having to read a book, and which is effective. Bingo.

 

[AnnaG]

Actually, I would support droppng the age at 15. I think most 15 year olds understand quite well what these crimes entail, their social ramifications, and why they're wrong. At 15, they're old enough to know. They're not as stupid as we think.

And yet they can't seem to grasp that if they use proper English they may be easier to understand. I disagree, knowing what the ramifications and legalese are is not the same thing as understanding them. I don't think much sinks into teenagers. They're at ages where hormones are making them part-time lunatics and as such I don't think should be held totally responsible for their actions. Besides that, some don't mature enough to grasp the implications of things until they are into their 20s.

Tax laws are the ones that come most to mind, since they seem to be the ones most likely to affect each citizen, though there may be others. Perhaps a flat tax without exceptions for A, B, C, etc. etc. etc. Just have a few basic categories that can fit on one bloody page, the meaning of which is obvious without having to read a book, and which is effective. Bingo.

 

[Machjo]

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.

Actually, I'd be more than happy to lower the age to 15. They're more than smart enough to know that killing and rape are wrong and why that is.

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.

Tax laws are a main concern just because they affect almost everyone. Yes, a flat tax would be a wise move.

 

[AnnaG]

Parroting yourself, Machjo?

 

[AnnaG]

And yet they can't seem to grasp that if they use proper English they may be easier to understand. I disagree, knowing what the ramifications and legalese are is not the same thing as understanding them. I don't think much sinks into teenagers. They're at ages where hormones are making them part-time lunatics and as such I don't think should be held totally responsible for their actions. Besides that, some don't mature enough to grasp the implications of things until they are into their 20s.

Didja read this part?

 

[Machjo]

Parroting yourself, Machjo?

Sorry. I'd posted earlier and when I'd checked again I couldn't see it anymore, so I thought it hadn't registered. Sorry.

 

[Machjo]

And yet they can't seem to grasp that if they use proper English they may be easier to understand. I disagree, knowing what the ramifications and legalese are is not the same thing as understanding them. I don't think much sinks into teenagers. They're at ages where hormones are making them part-time lunatics and as such I don't think should be held totally responsible for their actions. Besides that, some don't mature enough to grasp the implications of things until they are into their 20s.

I'd have to disagree. When I was fifteen, I had a clear understanding of right and wrong on these points as did most 15 year olds. And honestly, I get the impression from the ones I meet today that they are no different, quite capable of communicating clearly when needs be and acting responsibly if they want to.

 

[Machjo]

Quite honestly, I'd even give 15 year olds the vote.

 

[AnnaG]

I'd have to disagree. When I was fifteen, I had a clear understanding of right and wrong on these points as did most 15 year olds. And honestly, I get the impression from the ones I meet today that they are no different, quite capable of communicating clearly when needs be and acting responsibly if they want to.

I wouldn't exactly call you average, Machjo. That's a problem with people I have noticed. I was also quite well-aware of consequences. But I don't think that is the average and the average is what makes up the majority so sentencing a 15 year old to 15 years for armed robbery is ridiculous, IMO, when he/she may not understand what they would come out of prison like 7 years later (assuming good behavior).

 

[AnnaG]

Quite honestly, I'd even give 15 year olds the vote.

I think you're nuts. lol Most adults can't comprehend their actions, let alone 15 year olds in the political sense.

 

[Machjo]

I wouldn't exactly call you average, Machjo. That's a problem with people I have noticed. I was also quite well-aware of consequences. But I don't think that is the average and the average is what makes up the majority so sentencing a 15 year old to 15 years for armed robbery is ridiculous, IMO, when he/she may not understand what they would come out of prison like 7 years later (assuming good behavior).

I think most 15 year olds are capable of understanding consequences. If not, then yes I'd agree that an exception would have to be made on a case by case basis. but then, what does that say about the parents and the school system and society at large that even at the age of fifteen they still don't understand consequences? Trust me, the average fifteen year old is quite capable of understanding consequences if taught properly. Though I do agree that it would not be fair to punish him for something he was not properly educated about, granted. But we need to correct this in the education system then.

 

[Machjo]

I think you're nuts. lol Most adults can't comprehend their actions, let alone 15 year olds in the political sense.

Then I'm nuts.

 

[AnnaG]

I think most 15 year olds are capable of understanding consequences. If not, then yes I'd agree that an exception would have to be made on a case by case basis. but then, what does that say about the parents and the school system and society at large that even at the age of fifteen they still don't understand consequences? Trust me, the average fifteen year old is quite capable of understanding consequences if taught properly. Though I do agree that it would not be fair to punish him for something he was not properly educated about, granted. But we need to correct this in the education system then.

Exactly. It isn't so simple as just dropping the age for this, that, or the other thing.

lol I hope you realize I was kidding about the nuts part.

 

[Machjo]

Exactly. It isn't so simple as just dropping the age for this, that, or the other thing.

lol I hope you realize I was kidding about the nuts part.

I've got two of them.

 

[AnnaG]

I've got two of them.

Me, too. He's outside somewhere. lol

 

[JLM]

And yet they can't seem to grasp that if they use proper English they may be easier to understand. I disagree, knowing what the ramifications and legalese are is not the same thing as understanding them. I don't think much sinks into teenagers. They're at ages where hormones are making them part-time lunatics and as such I don't think should be held totally responsible for their actions. Besides that, some don't mature enough to grasp the implications of things until they are into their 20s.

I have to agree with you there, Anna, but I'm not sure at what age they would be mature enough- sometimes I think there's a whole generation out that just never will mature. I was in the bank yesterday and I got to noticing young women tellers in their 20s wearing noses rings and cheek rings and lip rings - they just don't seem to have any savvy about being presentable when dealing with the public. But what is scarier is what it says about their bosses. I think most 15 kids are smart enough, it's that F you attitude that crept in in the 60s.

 

[AnnaG]

Perhaps if appearance should be the fulcrum from which maturity is judged, then everyone should wear paperbags as full body suits. There's a guy nearby that wears glasses I don't like. A woman in a nearby town wears Danskins and she must weigh 100 kilos or more. Another person wears purples and greens together.

 

[FiveParadox]

I do believe I’m the first person to vote ‘no’.

The reason that our legislation must be ‘complicated’, using legal and parliamentary language, is so that the intent of the legislation can be carried out through the years and through various levels of government, and so that we can restrict the number of exploitable loopholes in legislation. By ‘dumbing down’ the language, we present the extreme risk of easily-challenged laws and unintended consequences.

 

[Machjo]

I do believe I’m the first person to vote ‘no’.

The reason that our legislation must be ‘complicated’, using legal and parliamentary language, is so that the intent of the legislation can be carried out through the years and through various levels of government, and so that we can restrict the number of exploitable loopholes in legislation. By ‘dumbing down’ the language, we present the extreme risk of easily-challenged laws and unintended consequences.

Of course. But there are ways of writing clearly, precisely, yet still concisely. Also, some laws, at least those that affect the daily lives of everyone, though possibly better in theory, fall apart because many can't follow them. At that stage, less perfect yet still well worded laws might actually work best not because the law itself is better (it might even be inferior), but because more people are likely to actually understand it and so follow it. A mediocre law that all can follow is likely to prove more successful than a perfect law that many just ignore.

 

[FiveParadox]

Almost all legislation passed by the Parliament of Canada also has a Legislative Summary prepared by the Library of Parliament; though these summaries may not be exactly to the tune of fifteen-year-olds, they are nonetheless in the direction you’re thinking.

I can just imagine...

1. Canadians can’t kill people. lol

2. Canadians can’t steal things either.

3. Sentences can be commuted by the (deleted: Governor General-in-Council) Queen’s bitch when important people tell her.