Finally, most everyone in the Netherlands has a liability insurance policy. If someone is insured for a certain act or failure to act, mitigation isn't possible. So on the basis of uninsured circumstances a person suffering damages caused by a child might have a problem recouping his losses but in reality this is mostly taken care of through insurance. — Benkei

What a terrible rule. Damages are damages, regardless of ability to pay. Why don't you guys just mandate liability insurance, go to a single payer system, have the government take it over, and then just redistribute the wealth according to need?

Is it a good rule to have debt hanging over children aged 15-18 for stupid mistakes?

You mustn't forget that even if these children are uninsured, the likelihood the person that suffered damages is insured against those damages himself in the Netherlands is huge. Every injury is covered by universal healthcare insurance, damages to cars are covered in instances where they were caused by others, etc. etc. We do like our insurances here. So the insurance company is generally left holding the bag since they cannot recoup the payment they made.

In fact, here's another nice one: if there's an accident between a car and biker, the car always has to pay for the damages because they have mandatory insurance even if it was the fault of the biker. Again, the insurance company is left holding the bag on that one too.

I assume that you too have an age limit in mind though? One that is not completely arbitrary? — charleton

I would say 12. There is limited research in the area, but what little there is tends to show that children from the age of 11ish are by-and-large capable of making rational choices.

There is a key difference between age and mental capacity which makes your analogy false. Age is wholly a linear spectrum where we have a clear case of growing capability. The same cannot be said of "mental disabilities" — charleton

I understand the distinction you're making, but I'm not sure what difference you think it makes. Surely both issues are about the fact that a certain group of people might not be able to make a rational decision. Otherwise we might as well give five year olds the vote, what other reason could there be not too.?

The idea that you would give insult to (maybe) millions of people to prevent them voting is horrific. — charleton

I don't think it is "horrific" to deny the vote to someone who is incapable of understanding what it is for and what their choices mean. I do think that if we are to allow the mentally ill to vote so long as they have the most basic grasp of what it means (which I agree with) then it is an horrific insult to a well educated and concerned 14 year old to be told that we have so little faith in them that we rate their capabilities below those of the seriously mentally ill.

I'm not talking about a pandemic of mental retardation sweeping the countryside to the point where we've lost sight of our baseline of what constitutes normal intelligence so that the new normal is a dramatically reduced state of intelligence. — Hanover

If the "mental retardation" becomes the normal, we may be looked at like "out of place , hyperactive, abnormal, minority" even be put inside hospital and may be debated whether should we be allowed to vote.
Democracy can still prevail

Generally, any one found mentally incompetent cannot vote, but whether that applies to those with Down's Syndrome appears to vary. — Hanover

The thread is about the UK where this discrimination does not exist.

But thanks for the info. Part so the US can be very backwards indeed. It's a wonder women can vote.

If the "mental retardation" becomes the normal, we may be looked at like "out of place , hyperactive, abnormal, minority" even be put inside hospital and may be debated whether should we be allowed to vote.
Democracy can still prevail — Santanu

Sure, Planet of the Apes.

I don't think it is "horrific" to deny the vote to someone who is incapable of understanding what it is for and what their choices mean. I do think that if we are to allow the mentally ill to vote so long as they have the most basic grasp of what it means (which I agree with) then it is an horrific insult to a well educated and concerned 14 year old to be told that we have so little faith in them that we rate their capabilities below those of the seriously mentally ill. — Pseudonym

You are trying to impose a law that is useless.
It's discrimination for the sake of it.
If every single person who was mentally ill, incapable of rational choice, or with any significant mental disability it would make no difference to the outcome of any election, as they are few in number and have a limited choice in candidates.
Unless you are trying to disallow millions of voters what is the point of discriminating against the most vulnerable people in society?

Any benefit you think you might gain, would be wiped out completely by the negative effects of trying to impose a ban, and the wholesale rejection of groups of vulnerable people.

You mustn't forget that even if these children are uninsured, the likelihood the person that suffered damages is insured against those damages himself in the Netherlands is huge. Every injury is covered by universal healthcare insurance, damages to cars are covered in instances where they were caused by others, etc. etc. We do like our insurances here. So the insurance company is generally left holding the bag since they cannot recoup the payment they made. — Benkei

That's what I was picking up on and what instigated my prior post. Your system appears less concerned about assigning responsibility and more about providing benefits regardless of fault. It's for that reason I suggested throwing out the private insurance and just making it a government run plan. I'd think that once you've added up your taxes and then thrown in your insurance payments, you'd have little money left to buy your herring treats.

In fact, here's another nice one: if there's an accident between a car and biker, the car always has to pay for the damages because they have mandatory insurance even if it was the fault of the biker. Again, the insurance company is left holding the bag on that one too. — Benkei

Insurance is a pooling of resources obviously, so the ones holding the bag are those who've contributed, which sounds like everyone. Those kinds of systems would seem to work best in homogenous, educated societies where there is a shared work ethic and value system. My guess is that internal opposition to your system comes from those distrustful of outsiders and concern that the common good is being disproportionately provided to those with lesser contribution. Of course, you likely call those people xenophobes, which maybe they are, but they might also be correct in prognosing an unsustainable system.

Then again, maybe I'm just talking about where I live, but maybe it's universal. I'd guess the latter.

Is it a good rule to have debt hanging over children aged 15-18 for stupid mistakes? — Benkei

The aim of the civil court system is for damages to get paid, when damages are real. If a 15-18 causes 250 000$ of damages to a landlord, it is not a valid reason for the landlord to have to eat up any of that 250 000$ in damages himself, that it was caused by someone who is only 15-18.

That doesn't really answer my question but tells me about laws in your country.

Let's say you're 15, driving your bicycle down the road and you don't give right of way for a bugatti veyron causing 120.000 euros in repairs and paint job because you didn't see it coming. You don't have insurance, your parents aren't held liable : is it fair and equitable to have to pay (everything)?

Edit : to emphasise, I'm not asking about what the result would be in your law system, I'm asking about your personal, ethical position.

My first concern would be in getting a bill in Euros. I guess I can see if my bank will exchange dollars for Euros, but this is highly unusual and I'm not at all happy about it. We also use a period to indicate the decimal point and a comma to divide thousands. So, 120.000 Euros would be about $150 USD, which sounds reasonable. If what you meant was $120,000, well then that's a different story.

But I digress.

My ethical position would be that I would not hold the child liable for the repair. In fact, I'd have some problem holding a 21 year old responsible. It has to do with my maybe incorrect view that you assume a certain risk walking around with a Faberge Egg in your coat pocket and the fault is your own if something should happen to it.

You are trying to impose a law that is useless. — charleton

I'm not trying to impose a law, I simply said that I didn't think it was "horrific", whether is it either practical or necessary is another question.

It's discrimination for the sake of it. — charleton

No, it is (or it would be if anyone were to actually do it), discrimination in order to avoid spoilt ballots. Whether there is a need to avoid spoilt ballots is another question, I'm personally not convinced there is, but it's certainly not just "for the sake of" discrimination.

If every single person who was mentally ill, incapable of rational choice, or with any significant mental disability it would make no difference to the outcome of any election, as they are few in number and have a limited choice in candidates.
Unless you are trying to disallow millions of voters what is the point of discriminating against the most vulnerable people in society? — charleton

As I said above, I'm not arguing that it is necessary, I'm arguing that the principle is exactly the same one by which we disenfranchise young people and so is not, in principle, horrific. It may well be pointless in practice and so not worth even bothering with. It may well be that giving the vote to all the mentally ill is an excellent idea because it will make them feel good about themselves for the cost of very little harm to democracy, fine, but the principle of disenfranchising people who are probably incapable of making a rational choice is one which is already applied to about 12 million people in the UK, simply by virtue of their being under 18, it can hardly be labelled "horrific".

No, it is (or it would be if anyone were to actually do it), discrimination in order to avoid spoilt ballots. — Pseudonym

Boo Hoo.
The spoilt ballot is in itself a political statement.
Get over yourself!

is already applied to about 12 million people in the UK, simply by virtue of their being under 18, it can hardly be labelled "horrific". — Pseudonym

False analogy for the reason I stated above.

I refuse to vote in elections where I do not feel that I am well enough informed to have an opinion on the candidates running for office.

The UNCRPD is definitely considered an authority and 177 countries have ratified it. So far only Ireland has yet incorporated it into law. It is influential in court judgements in the UK at least. The UK is committed to incorporating into UK law. It was in the Labour manifesto to do it. Tories are avoiding it.

The disconnection of mental capacity from legal capacity should of course not be absolute or reckless. It has been suggested that one sensible way to be UNCRPD compliant is for an extremely incapacitous adult to at least retain the right to sack their decision-maker, even if they have all other decisions made on their behalf. This would only be in the most extreme cases in which supported decision making were not possible.

Your converse point about holding incapacitous people responsible is an interesting one. Again, the actual system adopted should be a sensible one. A court having the power to hold an incapacitous person fully accountable does not mean they have the duty to. And I would expect that in nearly all cases it would not.

Of course the suggestion of this thread is part of the postmodern neomarxist conspiracy, as Psychology Today reveals. Don't say You weren't warned!

The reason for this is simple. A government can list anyone that poses a potential threat to their power in an election as “deficient” and therefore manipulate the whole election in their favour.