To the extent though the rule does mean that there should be no legal protections or limitations upon those who lack the ability to comprehend what they're engaging in, I am encouraged by the overwhelming rejection of the rule by the various European countries. — Hanover
This doesn't appear to me to apply to the right to vote since a vote cast for the 'wrong' candidate is unlikely to harm the individual as much as denying them this fundamental civic right can potentially harm them morally should they express the wish to exercise this right. (Also, since it's a right that they are unlikely to demand to exercise anyway, there is no downside to granting them universally). — Pierre-Normand
I think logical consistency would demand that if we believe the mentally handicapped should be protected from the decisions they impose on themselves, society should be protected from the decisions they attempt to impose on society. If a mentally handicapped person decides in favor of spending his entire inheritance on a single scoop of ice cream, society should not hold him to it. By the same token, if the mentally handicapped person decides in favor of (i.e. casts his ballot) spending all of society's tax dollars on a single scoop of ice cream, society should be afforded the same protections against him that he received for himself. — Hanover
The difference is that him deciding (and being allowed) to spend his inheritance on a scoop of ice cream will lead to him spending his inheritance on a scoop of ice cream, but him deciding (and being allowed to) vote in favour of spending all of society's tax dollars on a scoop of ice cream won't lead to all of society's tax dollars being spent on a scoop of ice cream, so it's a false analogy. — Michael
That is to say, your distinction is just an irrelevant detail that can be resolved to make the point that protecting the public from those who are clearly without the capacity to make their own decisions is good public policy, even if it violates some idealistic standard you're trying to impose without concern for practical impact. — Hanover
You can change the scenario to a district where there is a large home of mentally handicapped people who are swayed to vote by someone whose intent is to raid the public funds for his own pet project or you can place them all on a jury to decide someone's guilt. — Hanover
or you can place them all on a jury to decide someone's guilt. — Hanover
So there really needs to be a strong case to show that allowing the mentally ill to vote will actually (or at least with a reasonable possibility) lead to a bad outcome.
Besides, if we actually consider a real-life example of a ballot, the choice is usually going to be between a member of one party or the member of another, rather than some silly choice on what to spend all of society's money on. For the most part, the available options are reasonable (and even when they're not, you get sane people voting for the Monster Raving Loony Party, too). — Michael
It looks like it's going to go the way of higher taxes, so the Republicans get some vans and go to the hospital caring for the mentally handicapped and round them up, scare them into voting their way, and it swings the vote. — Hanover
I've no idea how a recognition of rationality would result in a minor being treated like he was the age of majority. — Hanover
That's what rationality is in the eyes of the court here, and again the origin of the 7 years old as 'the age of reason'. Nothing to do with being an adult or voting. — Akanthinos
But that has nothing to do with a child's liability or a child being held responsible for anything. — Hanover
The parents are being held liable for the acts of their child, which clearly indicates under the law that the child has limited duties to the public and is being considered a ward of his parents. — Hanover
Regardless, I don't see where anything you've said of Canadian law affects our discussion here. — Hanover
Never said it did. You brought that into question. Rationality is not the basis of why we get to vote as of 18, or why we are considered adults. We are all (hopefully) rational a good decade before that. — Akanthinos
Well, for starters, the discussion relates to a U.K law. As such, the Common Law basis is identical in both jurisdictions, and for the longest time, the highest instances were the same (the Chamber of Lords). Technically, the opinion of a georgian lawyer would be as if not more otiose than that of a canadian one. — Akanthinos
These are hard, incontrovertible facts. IQ tests DO NOT measure the ability to do IQ tests. Full Stop. — Dachshund
The only qualification has to be the ability to register, and choose. — charleton
So what's your argument that the 'moderately arbitrary' age method is better than the 'moderately arbitrary' IQ test method? — Pseudonym
I'm not saying that. What I would suggest is that even the mentally ill have political interests, and their voice is as valid as any one else. — charleton
Passing a test with all its problems is not a valid way to disenfranchise people. — charleton
As is the case with the vast majority of 16 year olds. Who are nonetheless disenfranchised. — Pseudonym
Intellectual Deficiency Disorders (IDD) like Down Syndrome and what was referred to by psychiatrists in the past as Mental Retardation; — Dachshund
You can change the scenario to a district where there is a large home of mentally handicapped people who are swayed to vote by someone whose intent is to raid the public funds for his own pet project or you can place them all on a jury to decide someone's guilt. — Hanover
If the scenario is such that there are more number of "mentally handicapped" person than "mentally healthy" people, the definition of mental health will required to be altered. It may be that the what you are thinking of being mentally healthy is actually mentally handicapped for most. — Santanu
Unless the democracy places limitations upon what the public can decide, as in a constitutional democracy, like exists in the US.As per definition of democracy it will go by what most people thinks. It does not matter whether it is "good or bad", "right or wrong". — Santanu
I suggest you spend an afternoon with a few people with Down's and try to tell them they are not allowed to vote. I think you might surprise yourself. — charleton
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.