Current laws a muddle
I ENJOYED reading Will Nixon's piece in Lowestoft Youth Action's section (May 15).The current laws on the minimum ages that young people can start doing different things are a muddle.
I ENJOYED reading Will Nixon's piece in Lowestoft Youth Action's section (May 15).
The current laws on the minimum ages that young people can start doing different things are a muddle.
I find it ridiculous 16 is considered old enough to make a sensible decision on whether to consent to sex but not to learn to drive or make an intelligent decision on who to vote for, sit on a jury or drink alcohol sensibly.
Also, why is the driving age 17 and not 18 or 16?
You may also want to watch:
Of course it is not clear cut. Perhaps a sensible decision on whether to consent to sex requires a different kind of maturity to making an informed decision about who to vote for. However, one can get into complex arguments because people mature differently.
There are many 16-year-olds capable of making better judgements on who to vote for than many adults.
- 1 Pub ordered to pay £23.5k compensation to sacked disabled worker
- 2 Relief for kittiwakes as controversial netting removed
- 3 Friends launch fantasy horse racing site to combat problem gambling
- 4 Lowestoft house fire starts in tumble dryer and rips through conservatory
- 5 Lowestoft man badly hurt after being attacked by gang in his own home
- 6 Man released from hospital after being stabbed in Lowestoft
- 7 Have your say on plans for 150 homes at former hospital site
- 8 Pakefield Man set for summer showcase
- 9 Lockdown easing to go ahead - but Hancock won't rule out reversal
- 10 Diversions in place with stretch of A12 to be closed overnight
As the majority of car accidents involve drivers in the 17-24 age group do we raise the driving age to 25?
Because of the problems caused by young people drinking do we raise the drinking age to say 30?
I read Peter Tachell's arguments for lowering the age of sexual consent to 14. He argued that there is no evidence that 16 is the age of emotional security. What Tatchell doesn't seem to clarify is why he argues specifically for 14.
On the basis that a line has to be drawn somewhere, surely it can only be argued for an agreed general age of general maturity and that should be the age for allowing everything.
As the laws stand it is understandable why young people, interested in voting, feel a sense of injustice. It is extremely unlikely that any government would make the minimum age for everything higher so on that basis Will is correct. Young people probably make more bad decisions about sex than anything else but it's the one thing they are allowed to start at 16.