Sweden considers criminal responsibility at 13
IN THE NEWS
Sweden’s government has said that they want to lower the age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 13 in serious cases such as violent crime. This means that some 13-year-olds could be held responsible for serious crimes. It's part of a plan to stop gangs from using children and to reduce serious youth crime.
Supporters say younger teenagers involved in serious offences should face consequences for their actions. Others worry that treating children this young as criminals could harm their development.
If you can be held responsible for a crime at 13, should you be able to vote?
Do you think the age of criminal responsibility should match the age you can vote? Why or why not?
Tell us what you think
You might want to structure your answer like this:
I think the age of responsibility [should / should not] match the age of voting because [your reason]. One example that supports my view is [something from the news, the student hub or the lesson]. However, others might argue that [a different point of view].
Before you post, read what other Topical Talkers have shared and reply to someone with a different opinion.
Comments (66)
Hi topical talkers! In the moment when I sawed the tiltel of this topic I remained completely shocked. In my opinion a child who is just 13 years old shouldn't be punished for a serious crime like a 16-18 years old teen because first of all such a young person has a very malleable mind so it can be easily controlled by other people who prefer to action by using young persons. Every young child after he committed a serious crime should be taken away from his parents(who most of the time are considered responsible for the child's behaviour and education) his house and put in a correction center wich in my opinion should help more a child to change himself than a prison.
If the child will change his behaviour and transform in a great and nice person wich after a psychological test will have good results, I think he should be let to vote.
I disagree because there are still some children who are well aware of there actions and what it is they intended to do .An example of such is graham young the teacup poisoner who tested his poisons on his unknowing family members, schoolmates and friends at the age of 14 .He was a very intellectual individual but lacked national awareness and still didn't care of civic responsibility till the age of 34 ,so why am I saying this? this boy was well aware of his intentions and what he was doing, he was addressed about his habit countless times but still continued in his already dark path it's not about a malleable mind and being controlled it more about it being intentional or not .
I think the age of responsibility should match the age of voting because if the children are old enough to make decisions about important leadership roles then they should be old enough to face consequences of their choices. If a 13 year old can legally be held responsible for a serious crime, they should also be trusted to vote, since both of these actions involve understanding the impact of their decisions. An example of this is how voting results affect everyone in a country or city, since elected leaders make laws that impact many people. In a similar way, if a kid were to commit a crime, then many people could be affected or involved. However, others might argue that voting and committing a crime are very different types of actions that require different types of thinking. They might say that while voting is more about voicing someone's opinion and thoughts, the person who committed a crime should be older and more mature before facing a harsh punishment. Despite this, I believe responsibly should come with both rights and consqfesnes, so the ages should match.
I agree because of a statement you made about 13 year old people being decision makers for themselves and would like to add a bit more to the reason why I support you. In the present world, teens believe they are adults and request independence in their lives. Now with this independence, the teen can either make a good decision or a bad decision, as decision making becomes the individual's responsibility. And before this child can make this decision, he or she has his or her values.
These values should also be given another means of expression in the aspect of voting. With the same perspective they may think of doing the bad action; they can also be able to think about what is the best decision, as the voting decisions affect them and can allow their decision to play a key role in winning the election.
However, others may argue about the child being arrested as a bit too harsh , but the child made the decision and should be rightly punished in order to serve as an example to other individuals who may be thinking of becoming criminals not to perform the act, as they will be properly punished by law.
Hey there, I wanted to add my opinion to broaden the discussion.
I strongly disagree with you. You said that since it affects everyone, kids should be allowed to vote. But the problem with that is that most kids, don’t have political opinions. Only about 56% of teens actually are interested in politics. They are raised to recognize mistakes, not to form political views. If we were to implement child voting, the entire education system would need to change to teach them, which is funding that many schools don’t have. They may not have the people or resources to hire new teachers. Not only that but these are responsibilities kids shouldn’t have. Imagine trying to explain why a racist politician wants to limit immigration, to a child. Trying to explain why some of the world considered them less than, and what they should do with that information.
You are also underestimating teenage rebellion. When teens get together to protest, they can do amazing things. For example, The White Rose. They were a group of teenagers who began publishing leaflets against the Nazi’s and Hitler, and were vital to changing the tide of favour in the war. If these teenagers feel wronged by this, they have so many resources to fuel a rebellion against it, such as social media where they can reach out globally, and promote their cause.
Children should be allowed to have a childhood. Teenagers have much more power and influence when angered, such is the teen rebellion stage. They will protest against it, and it will cause turmoil. As such, the best route is to treat kids, like kids.
i strongly agree with you and i really love your comment on this topic
I agree with the idea that children don't yet have all the information or maturity necessary to make such important decisions as voting. Even if they had access to that information, they often wouldn't be able to analyze it correctly or think about the long-term consequences. Voting without sufficient knowledge can harm the country, since a bad decision affects not just one person, but the entire society. Furthermore, there are a large number of children and teenagers today, and allowing them to vote without adequate preparation could cause serious problems.
On the other hand, I also agree that when a child commits a crime, the situation must be taken seriously. If nothing is done about it, that behavior can worsen over time and cause bigger problems in the future. Thirteen-year-olds need to learn that all actions have consequences, and that if they continue making bad decisions, those consequences will become increasingly severe. It's not about punishing them without reason, but about teaching them responsibility and helping them understand the difference between right and wrong.
In conclusion, I believe children should focus more on enjoying their childhood, learning, playing, and growing as individuals. I agree that they shouldn't have to worry about such important and complex decisions at such a young age. Being a child is a stage that never comes again, while being an adult is a much longer stage, with plenty of time to think, learn, and make more responsible decisions.
I believe that the age of responsibility should match the voting age because if a 13-year-old kid was arrested so that he or she must have the rights to vote in the elections. The age of 13 is the age of being more consciences than in the past therefore people that are 13 must know about politics and their schools have to provide them with lessons about the world disasters. People who are from 13 to 18 are still educating so that they must participate in the education elections at least.
Secondly, countries reduce the age of responsibility to reduce the crimes in it and to live peacefully and safely. For example, in my country, Egypt, the age of responsibility is from 13 to 18 and if a kid in this age committed a crime, he or she would go to a place called the juvenile detection. This place is like a prison but for kids moreover education and health care are provided.
A surprising example is that the Syrian kid, Redost Hamada. He is 12 years old. He is the one who created a private political party with his friend from Denmark. This example shows that this was the youngest political kid in the world.
To conclude, elections must be for everyone, from the youngest to the oldest but the most important thing is that the one who participate in the elections must be conscience.
In my own perspective, I think the age of criminal responsibility should match the age of voting because... since a young teenager of 13 yrs can be held accountable and responsible for a crime, he or she should also be able to vote. Young teenagers should be able to vote because they can be able to make decisions on their own which can affect them positively or negatively.
Hello adept_tornado i can see that point you make by saying " they can be able to make decisions on their own which can affect them positively or negatively,"however i disagree with your comment. I say this because teenagers are hitting puberty at 13 years old which means their hormones are spiking which give them mood swings during this time and it is a know fact that their minds are very malleable during this time. This means that the people around them affect what they perceive to be wrong or rights.
I believe a 13 year old teenager should not be punished like an adult and should not be given the right to vote, however being in a democracy means everyone is equal. If a teenager is punished as an adult it is only fair that they get the rights of an adult in a democracy. In a situation like this I believe a democracy to be unfair because in no way (physically or mentally) is a teenager of 13 years equal to an adult, however a democracy says otherwise.
I think that the age for all of this responsibility is at least 15 - 16 because if you are quite young it might be very scary and very different to what you are used to be seeing and what you are used to be eating , drinking , sleeping and I don't think that it for for many young people go to jail . I think that if a 13 year old can go to jail that is not fair for anyone in that age .
In a similar way I do not think that any kids should go to jail or commit any types of crimes because if kids do commit crimes I think that they should at-least get grounded for about 3 days not go to jails I would say that teenagers might be most likely to commit crimes but I still think that they still shouldn't get arrested but I do not agree that they should go to jail I think that they should only be able to go to jail at the age of 15 and older .
I believe that people that are very lucky if they don't get arrested at older ages but I also agree that people that are 16-17 that they are close to a adult age so I think that older people will be more respectful to others and hopefully will not brake any rules and they should be more responsible , I think that people around this age will not break that many rules and will be able to make way better decisions than younger people and people with really young ages but people with a little bit older people will have loads more responsibility than the younger peoples .
For furthermore reasons I think that all people that are under 15 or 16 should have less privileges than the older people should have more reasons to be safe .
Hi playful_acorn - can you say a little more about your idea that young teenagers involved in serious or violent offences should be grounded for a few days as punishment?
I think the age of responsibility should match the age the age of voting because I think that every decision made should have benefits or consequences. If an individual is considered old enough to vote, he should therefore be ready for the responsibility that will come with his decisions. An individual who knows the consequences of his decision would make sure to take decisions that he thinks is the best and one that will bring benefits.
I also agree with these statement because it can serve as a standard in the behavior morals of our youth. Some youth actually have the mindset that if they do something wrong, nothing would happen to them. This should not be so. This actually drives youth to take decisions without thinking of the responsibility that comes with it.
Others may disagree because they think that the individual is too young to be punished for his actions. Well, I don't believe in that statement because the individual will start taking decisions and he/she wouldn't care about the consequences. I think that when we understand our votes and responsibility of those votes, It would help in taking quality decisions in the favor of the citizens.
I believe that the age of responsibility should not match the voting age because children of age 13 are aware of what is right and what is wrong and understand the consequences for their action especially this new generation that is aware of many mature things not even intended for their age groups. But most children are not well informed enough to even approach how to vote and choose the right leader to vote for, just because people are readily informed on social media does not mean everything, they are informed about is true. One example that I think supports this is Jon Venables and Robert Thompson who did something to a two (2) year old boy James Bulgar, which I don't think I can mention on this platform because of younger topical talkers ,these two boys were convicted at the age of 10 but these boys were not at the age of voting which proves my statement that even the younger ones are still capable of taking part in crimes therefore age should not be a determinant of criminal responsibility as long as the accused is aware of what is right and what is wrong and capable of understanding human emotion. However, some people may still argue that as long as a child is well informed and can make a critical decision like voting a leader then the age of voting should be the same as the age of criminal responsibility. But, I strongly disagree about this statement.
I agree with you based on an honest second thought, at first I saw things based on the fact that if an individual can be arrested age 13, they can also vote. But based on this comment I do not.
This is because in this present day, many crimes can be committed by anybody, and I no longer think that there should be an age boundary. Imagine an 8 year old child killing someone out of anger and not being arrested because the child may seen as too young, but there is clear evidence of the crime and would be unfair to the family of the deceased. If this child is let alone, this may become the immediate expression of anger of that person and may eventually think it is the best way of expressing anger instead of controlling his or her emotions.
Similarly, if this child is punished and arrested, the child will now see and understand that the act was a crime and is punishable and through this lesson, the child will immediately try to think of ways to control anger rather than killing again, reducing crime rate in that society.
This however should not apply to voting as the child may not be politically sound and have proper exposure and as you said may not have the social media to be completely true.
However others may argue that it is the fault of the parents with poor home training. But I still disagree with the statement.
I think the age of responsibility should match the age of voting because if one is able to think and commit crime at the age of thirteen then they should mature enough to vote to help the growth of the country. an instance was when Shawn seesahai was killed by a two 12 year old in the Wolverhampton. However, others might argue that it might have been anger that caused such misbehaviour.
I think that the age of responsibility should not match the age of voting because responsibility and rights are not the same thing. Being punished for a crime is about protecting society, while voting is about making informed decisions that affect the whole country. A 13-year-old might understand that crime is wrong, but that does not mean that they are ready to fully understand politics, laws, or long term consequences of voting decisions.
I feel that the Swedish government is trying to prevent gangs like foxtrot from using children to carry out their crimes, so lowering the age of responsibility is a form of protection, as they already have a high rate of gangs. But that does not mean that they are giving 13-year-olds the same privileges as fully grown adults.
However, others might think that if someone is old enough to face serious consequences, they should also have serious rights like voting. Although this might sound fair, I believe that children still need time to develop emotionally and mentally and understand the depth of voting decisions before taking part in it.
Hi, topical talkers.
In my opinion, A child may indulge in crime while knowing the right thing to do due to bad influence or probably ignorance; and at that point it is quite evident that a child who cannot discern right from wrong by indulging in crime is obviously not fit to vote, because we need people who will vote for a person or a government that will adequately lead citizens and not people who will vote based on the influence of others. In conclusion, we need to stop focusing on children who we know are not eligible enough to vote as they are still easily influenced at this stage and center the discussion on proper electoral practices.
Hi honest_blackberry - many older people cannot discern right from wrong, how could you determine who is fit to vote?
Hi, James@ PA Consulting.
Not exempting adults from the inability to discern right from wrong, nevertheless it is expected that most adults should be able to make better decisions than children for reasons like development, accumulated experience and responsibilities. In the world we live in today, it is difficult to state that a particular opinion is completely correct; as a matter of fact, that is why moral disagreement has become a norm in politics. Basically, I am not saying that adults could always discern right from wrong, but it is expected that a fully developed adult could make more right choices than wrong ones due to their level of experience, increasing their reasoning ability in making decisions. In conclusion, fitness to vote doesn't depend on who can discern rightly alone, but who can do so with a high level of understanding, experience and deep reflection, which is why I feel older ones or in other words adults are more suitable voters.
This particular question sparked a flame. Well, I have been thinking about this same thing for quite some time, and I would really like to share my opinion. To me, the most suitable way to determine whether or not somebody is suitable for voting is by making a standardized maturity test on political awareness. The main problems associated with immature voters include a lack of political awareness, the fact that they can be easily manipulated, the fact that they may think of only the short term, and the fact that they may also vote based on peer pressure. All these problems can build long-term consequences for a nation. Why I feel like a test should be taken in order to determine eligibility is because it would help to understand the way in which someone perceives the political field. The political space is very complex, and I think in order to partake, citizens should be assessed on their awareness of citizen rights and responsibilities, the accuracy of the information they hear, and lastly, their inclusion (not their intelligence). With these few requirements, it would greatly change the way voting happens and will allow us to be certain that everyone who casts a vote is responsible and politically ready to make a decision that can affect not only themselves but also the general public.
THANK YOU.
I believe that everyone has to pay for their actions and by 13, one should be able to differenciate between right and wrong, so being sentenced to a period of time in juvinile detention should not be a hassle. But I also believe that if you think that they are old enough to serve time, why don't you think they are old enough to vote, if they can be fined because they are believed to know right from wrong, they should be able to apply that knolegde in elections as we need younger minds.
The age at which a person can be held criminally responsible should not be the same as the age at which they can vote. These two are two different things. A 13 year old may understand enough about right and wrong to be held accountable for serious crimes, but this does not mean they have the maturity, experience, and knowledge to make informed decisions about laws, policies, and politicians. Voting requires understanding complex social, economic, and political issues, and research has shown that adolescents are still developing the cognitive abilities to make these decisions. For example, UNICEF has stated that children aged 10-14 are still developing critical thinking and decision making skills, which are essential for making informed decisions about democratic participation in elections. Another good example that supports this argument is the Swedish debate, where the government has suggested that the age of criminal responsibility should be lowered to 13 for serious crimes. While this may serve as a deterrent against gangs recruiting children and holding them accountable for crimes, it does not neccessarily mean that these children are ready to vote. Some Topical talkers may say that if society is going to hold children accountable for serious crime, then they should have a say in the laws and policies that govern them. This argument, while fair and just, may ignore the vast difference between understanding personal responsibility and understanding complex societal issues.
Yes! I totally agree with your statement! Being 13 years old is where you're still developing in life, and I don't think that age is a suitable time to start voting, but it is a good time to have the maturity to determine what is legal and what isn't. I believe being held accountable for crimes is not related and shouldn't be linked to voting, just as you said! Good job! :)
In my opinion, I strongly believe that the age of reliability should not match the age of voting as if a child were to commit a serious crime, it gives the child a harsh and unhealthy mindset to be responsible enough to start voting. It could also depend on what crime the child has committed and what their reason for doing so. For example, if a thirteen year old would've committed murder intentionally, it gives them a reason to not vote as the crime proves there are not in the correct mental and physical state for them to be able to vote. However, I can understand why other people might feel differently about this opinion as they could view this in a different view and a specific perspective of seeing this matter.
I disagree with you, I think that the age of responsibility should match the age of voting because if a child actually commit a crime, he should be ready to face the consequences of his actions. If a child votes, he should be ready to understand the gravity of his decision.
Others may disagree because they think that the child is too young to be treated with punishment. However, i think that if the child is not punished, he or she would not learn to be responsible for his actions.
I think the age of responsibility should match the age of voting because if you are considered mature enough in the eyes of the law to be tried in a court just like anybody else then you also deserve to be treated maturely in other aspects of your life. The change itself was proposed to combat criminal gangs exploiting young, susceptible children. Gangs often used these children to do 'the dirty work' since the kids would get out at a sooner time compared to their own members. If you can be judged by the laws and society then you deserve to at least have a say in those laws and that society. Additionally, teaching children about politics, geopolitics, voting, economics, sex, etc. from a young age makes it so that they are more likely to be engaged with the world around them and act as future leaders.
However, others might argue that criminal responsibility and the right to vote need to be different because they are inherently different in essence. Laws are put in place for responsibility while voting is about voting in a democratic process by making choices for a specific community's future. My counterpoint is as follows:
The right to vote is not decided by mental competency or knowledge otherwise older people would be unable to vote. If the right to vote was instead decided by mental competency then I could get behind the idea that these are two inherently seperate things however, age and citizenship are the only deciding factors so I believe that you should have equal rights in all aspects of life. If you can get charged, you can vote.
I disagree because a court does not consider you mature they consider your actions as mature, in the eyes of the court what is wrong is wrong and everybody should be treated fairly. Rights and responsibility are two separate ideas, concepts ,definitions, they're worlds apart. it is a right to vote at the proper age and it is a responsibility to abide by the law of the land. A child committing a crime could be well aware of his actions but completely nationally unaware he may not have any political understanding and it would be best if kids stick to what kids do, and even teaching them from a young age is not enough, if schools decided to teach such that would be a huge blow in the education system which can't be funded by some educational institutions it won't even be enough if parents taught them everything ,So left to me voting should not be the same age as criminal responsibility.
I think the age of criminal responsibility should not match the age you can vote. Just because someone is old enough to be blamed for something bad doesn’t mean they’re ready to make big choices, like voting for a country’s future. Kids at 13 are still figuring out who they are, what they like, and what they believe in. Their brains aren’t fully developed yet to think about politics like adults do.
For example, Sweden wants to hold 13-year-olds responsible for serious crimes like violence, which seems fair because kids shouldn’t get away with bad actions. But being responsible for a crime is different from deciding who should run the country. A 13-year-old might be able to understand right from wrong when it comes to, say, stealing or hurting someone, but how are they supposed to know who’s best to be Prime Minister?
Some might say, “If you can be treated like an adult for bad actions, you should vote like one.” But voting means understanding laws, taxes, and the future, which takes more experience. It’s like choosing what’s for dinner, but on a much bigger scale. Not all kids can handle that.
Just like we don’t let kids drive cars at 13, even if they’re responsible in other areas, I think voting should come later. While kids need to be responsible for their actions, they shouldn’t vote until they can truly think it through.
Some might argue, “If you’re responsible for a crime, you should vote too.” But I think those are different kinds of responsibility. One is about actions, the other is about shaping the country’s future. So, I believe they shouldn’t match up.
The debate about lowering the voting age becomes more complex when compared with the age of criminal responsibility. Sweden plans to hold some 13-year-olds responsible for serious crimes. If society believes a child can understand the consequences of breaking the law at 13, does that mean they are mature enough to choose leaders only a few years later?
I support lowering the voting age, but with caution. If teenagers are considered mature enough to face legal consequences, it seems fair to give them more democratic rights as well. 16-year-olds are directly affected by decisions about education, climate change and jobs. Allowing them to vote would make elections more representative and encourage early political engagement.
But voting and criminal responsibility are not the same. Criminal responsibility is about knowing right from wrong, which even younger teenagers can do. Voting requires deeper knowledge, critical thinking and life experience. A 13-year-old may understand that a violent crime is wrong, but that doesn't mean they are ready to judge national policies. Hence, the two ages do not need to match exactly.
Still, there should be balance. If the law treats teenagers more like adults in court, it is reasonable to expand their rights too. Lowering the voting age to 16, rather than 13, is a sensible compromise.
Overall I support giving 16- and 17-year-olds the vote, but I don't believe the voting age should automatically be the same as the age of criminal responsibility.
I think age of responsibility should match the age of voting because if they make your responsible for your acts then you must be responsible for shaping the future of your country. How could it be reasonable to act with as mature and responsible and old then when the votes come, they say you are still young, irresponsible and immature. Does this sound to you as logic? I think not. One example that support my view is that in the UK 16 years old children are responsible for their acts and for that they give them the ability to enter the military, so I think the same thing must happen with the voting rights.
I think the age of responsibility should not match the age of voting because at that age they could be easily manipulated because younger children will try influence there opinions on others . it also doesnt really have a benefit to them because the priminister will raise bills or pricings of things that has nothing to do with children. However, others might argue that if children could be inpriosned then they should be able to vote becuase they are considerd aware of there actions then they should be considered at able to volte and make a good decision.
Seeing this nearly broke my heart the age of responsibility shouldn't be 13. I know Sweden's crime rate have went up a lot since i am Swedish i have seen crime in my city few times most being Serious by young adults of the age of 15-17 but trying to make 13 year old's responsible of crime is NOT right
why should crime by young adults punish the the ones even younger even if its a serious crime and they have no remorse for their actions they are just to young and once their in juvenile detention they can understand and change for the better.
We should always give second chances to young people and if they do it again then they deserve punishment but people of the age of 13 should be accounted for crime It's not right. We can help them with therapy and help them get past their struggles. No one can have a deadly intent looking at their past can help them get through the present. Someone could argue that what if they don't change and repeat their wrongs? Then they deserve to be punished but most people can change and we encourage them to. Yes we cant give third chances but most would change for good by then and never repeat their wrong again.
In conclusion i say that the age of responsibility should not be 13 and rather 18 and above which it should and always be like.
I think the age of responsibility should match the age of voting because it is not fair to treat someone like an adult only when they do something wrong.
One example that supports my view is the new rule in Sweden that could send 13 years olds to jail. If the government thinks a 13 years old is grown up enough to understand the law and go to prison , then they should be grown up enough to vote for the people who make those laws!! It is like being told you are old enough to pay the price but too small to have a choice.
However, others might argue that knowing not to hurt people is easy, but picking a leader for a whole country is a lot harder and needs more years of school and learning.
In my opinion, these laws are not good for children. An adult is someone over 18 , So why is the government being so greedy?? They are taking away the chance for children to have a CHILDISH LIFE before they actually become adults. 🔞
Hope you like comment 🤗
I disagree because some children are not aware of the law but still persist to do the wrong thing and even as mature as the crime may be be they still persist to do the wrong thing knowing fully well that their actions are wrong, and what even makes it a crime is that the child does not have remorse for his actions and meant to do it with every bone and fiber of his body such a child does not know of the law and obviously can't understand voting ethics and that is why I believe the age of criminal responsibility should not match the voting age.
I think the age of criminal responsibility should not match the age of voting because being held responsible for a crime is very different from making political decisions. In Sweden, the government is considering lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 13 in serious cases, mainly to stop gangs from using children to commit violent crimes. This makes some sense, because if a young person is involved in serious violence, there need to be consequences to protect society and discourage gangs. However, that does not mean a 13-year-old is ready to vote.
Voting requires a deep understanding of politics, laws, and how decisions affect the whole country, not just one situation. Most 13-year-olds are still developing emotionally and intellectually, and they usually do not have enough knowledge or life experience to make informed political choices. Criminal responsibility is about understanding right and wrong in specific actions, while voting is about long-term national decisions.
Others might argue that if someone is old enough to be punished for a crime, they should also be trusted with the right to vote. I understand this view, but I disagree because punishment and political responsibility are not the same. Lowering the voting age could risk uninformed decisions, while criminal responsibility can still exist to prevent harm and exploitation.
You make a compelling argument distinguishing between different types of maturity, and that serious criminal activity is a simpler matter to be informed on compared to the range of matters which might want proper consideration when voting. You conclude that lowered voting could risk uninformed decisions, but do you think that risk is removed with age?
hello dear topical talkers I think children well technically teenager's criminal responsibility should match their voting age because if 13 year olds have knowledge and know what consequences will Happen if they commit serious crimes like murdering someone, robbing a bank and hacking serious Cia websites I think that they have the same responsibility and thinking capability to vote however others might disagree with him that they are just children and this is too harsh for them but if we do that then they won't think about the consequences take advantage and keep doing the wrong chaotic stuff so in conclusion I agree with this statement.
signing off: Fair minded elephant
I disagree that the age of criminal responsibilty should match the voting age. I think its a little extreme. Just because someone is responsible for the wrongs they do (in terms of criminal responsibilty) at age 13 does not mean he/she should be given the liberty to make decisions that affect an entire country. That is a huge risk, individuals under the age of 18 are still yet to resist peer pressure, understand policies and make proper decisons, talk less of 13 year olds. These kids are not developmentally ready if you ask me. Allowing them accountabke in a court is one thing while entrusting votes with them is another. One shapes THEIR life while the other shapes everybody else's. These things should be kept separate, young teens should be accountable for their wrongs but they should not have a say when it comes to national policies. I advice they wait till they reach the appropriate voting age, by then, they would be mature in many aspects.
I believe the age of responsibility should not match the age of voting. These two things are very different. Voting is a big decision about a country’s future, while criminal laws are about following the rules of society.
The punishment for a crime should vary based on the age of the person and if they understood what they did. For example, if a 13-year-old is manipulated by an older person to do something illegal, they might not understand the danger. In this case, they should go to rehabilitation to learn instead of being put in prison.
However, if a young person fully understands that their crime is serious and wrong, there must be a consequence. They should be jailed, but they should be separated from adult jails. This way, they are punished for their choice but stay safe from older, more dangerous criminals.I think the age of responsibility should not match the age of responsibility however I think that the punishment for a crime should vary depending on the age of the perpetrator of the crime. So if they are young and did not understand their actions or was manipulated into doing something they didnt understand well they should be rehabilitated instead of jailed , but if they fully understood their crime they should be jailed but seperated from adult jail.
I think the age of voting should match the age of criminal responsability because if you are old enough to vote and to contribute in your country by giving your opinion, you must also face the consequences from your acts.
Others might say that a 13-year-old teenager is not mentally prepared enough to deal with all the consequences their acts could might have, but they should think that if someone is already allowed to vote and to have a say in who governs the country, it means that is mature enough to know what is right and what is wrong.
To conclude, I think that this two ages should match, but, personally, I will increase a bit this age, maybe to 15 or 16, because I don't think a 13-year-old is able to manage all these situations.
I think that age for voting and criminal responsibility should be same, because if country thinks that kid who is 13 years old is mature enough to speak about what they did,then that same kid should have right to vote,if it isn't like that then its just unfair.Right to vote and responsibility have to work together,Its not fair to only get punished for what we did without any impact on the society,in this case to not have right to vote.Young people are getting bombarded with new laws and decisions that their country chose,and only fair thing is that they should at least have some kind of right to vote or to help develop new politic decisions.And also if young person in mature enough to bear with punishment and things that happen after something bad they did,then they are 100% mature enough to think wisely and choose on who is best for their current situation in their society and country.
I disagree because that are completely two different things. I think that criminal responsibility is an action because of what you did in the past and democracy is about the future. You can be able to understand what you did bad and consequences that you got because of it but at the same time you don't need to be ready to thing about the important changes and desicions that also affect on other people in the world.
On the other hand, I think that understanding what you did bad don't show that you are mature. It just shows that you learn something from your mistakes, but not that you can vote for example new president or something others. If the voting age is lower younger people will be more manipulated by older ones because in the age of 13 you often don't think like the older person. Kids would better listen to their parents and their thoughs in that case.
I agree that young people need to be involved in democracy and politics, but 13-years-old is a little too much for me. About the criminal resposibility, if nothing else, they will learn that they don't do bad things and that there is always some kind of consequences. Do you agree with me?
I think that the age of responsibility should match the voting age because both need responsibility for wrong action whether it for voting g the wrong president or harming someone without a reason.
I think that fifteen years already was low and should be raised to eighteen because at fifteen, you still don't even have a ID so how would you be responsible without the most basic responsibility represented identity.
Why would someone with a child who just started elementary school be notified that his child is in jail of violence.
I think the age of criminal responsibility should not match the voting system.
Kids are raised to understand their errors, and to own up to their mistakes. They are not however, raised to make political decisions. Often young adults go through a period of time where they need to figure out their political stance and learn to follow politics. Allowing very young teenagers to vote, would need to change our education system itself. We would need to educate them very early on what political choices they can make, as if we don’t we are effectively ruining the voting system by allowing uninformed children to vote on whatever information they managed to scrap together instead of confirmed info.
As an example, about only 56% of 16-17 year olds are somewhat interested in politics (elections.ca). If people almost allowed to vote are this uninterested, imagine what 13-15 year olds think. It would be detrimental to our voting system if we allowed them to vote without changing our education system, and changing the education system needs funding, that many schools don’t have. It would require additional resources and teachers, and changing so abruptly would cause schools like these to panic.
If we were to allow children to vote, multiple other measures would have to be taken. At that point they would essentially be treated as adults, despite being naive, and young. They would need to carry responsibilities that children shouldn’t have to worry about. Added with the new education that would need to be put in place, it causes chaos.
I think the age of responsibility should not match the age of voting as being punished for a crime is not the same as voting which requires understanding laws, and how that decision would affect the whole country and young aged 13 years are still building their knowledge, on the other side committing a crime is about breaking the laws a child might understand that harming others is not right but that does not always means they understand politics and government issues.
One example tha supports my view is a news story from Egypt in Ismailia Governorate where a 13 years student committed a very serious crime against another student. This news shocked our society and shows how children might affected by violent media and games. it emphasize that laws need to deal very carefully with serious crimes committed by children.
Criminal responsibility is about protecting the society while voting is about understanding complex issues. Children in that age may understand what's is right or wrong but still not able to understand political choices.
For these reasons being responsible for a crime does not mean someone is ready to vote.
I think the age of responsibility shouldn't match the age of voting because being responsible of the actions you're doing is not the same as understanding society issues and politics. Some young people can know what is true and what is wrong but still can't take decisions. People voting must be careful and should think about the topic many times to take serious decisions, while the age of responsibility is just about knowing if this is "ok" to be done or not; this is why the age of responsibility is lower than the age of voting. Furthermore, voting requires skills to be done and some of these skills are gained as youth people grow.
One example that supports my view is that over 90% of nations around the world have a lower age of responsibility than the age of voting. This clearly supports that children aged 10-16 are considered accountable for crimes they do and that voting should be allowed for older people.
However, others might argue that "if you are responsible for a crime, then you should be allowed to vote for the elections."
I strongly disagree with them because it is not good to do a crime, so you are rewarded as being able to vote. It doesn't even make sense. Making crimes show how unresponsible a person is. Also, young people at the age of 13 may have a lack of information and may take quick decisions which are inaccurate. So, the chance of voting should be given to a more responsible person who cares more, has the ability to think about things critically and look at "the full picture" not only one side of it.
I think that the age for criminal responsibility should not be the same as the age for voting. These are two different concepts. First, criminal responsibility is not the same as participating in the democratic process. Sweden wants to lower the age of criminal responsibility to 13 for serious violent crimes only because they want to prevent gangs from using children. In this case, holding young people accountable can prevent crimes and protect society, even if they are still children.
However, this does not mean that a 13 year old should be able to vote. Criminal responsibility requires that a person understand that what they did was wrong and would cause harm in a particular situation. To vote, a person needs a whole range of skills, including an understanding of how politics work, an ability to analyse policies, and the ability to think about the long term consequences of policies on society. Most young teenagers are learning these skills and lack experience with political issues.
It has been argued that if a person is accountable to the law, they should also have the right to vote. This argument seems reasonable, but it fails to recognise that the purpose of the law is different from the purpose of voting. The law is intended to protect society and prevent harm, while voting is intended to shape the future of the country.
I think that age of responsibility should not match the age of voting simply due to the fact that considering whether to do a serious crime is something a 13 year old should be able to do but to consider who to vote, there are many different factors to consider. 13 year olds should be able to understand the impact of their actions when they commit a crime. They should be able to think through their actions and to determine whether or not what they have done is right. This means that they should be held responsible for their actions which can rehabilitate them and brings justice to victims. To vote however, it isn't as straightforward. There are many different elements to take into account. There is no "right" politician to vote for. We need to be able to critically think about their policies and how they affect ourselves and other people. We need to be able to process and answer questions like: "Are their policies good for the economy? Are they good for minorities? How will this affect education? Or healthcare? Is the politician themselves a good person who I want leading my country?" All of these questions are something we need to consider when it comes to voting and most 13 year olds won't be able to properly think carefully about them before they vote. Voting affects the entire country and if we have people who cannot consider all factors, that is something that is detrimental to the country as a whole.
Hello guys!! I think age of responsibility should not match the age of voting because they should know there clarity of there life before attains the age of 13 to 18, As the parents view of children they should not let the children not to do criminalism ,They should guide the children in a proper guidance means there will be not criminals in Sweden and all over the world . Most of the crime is rooting in this world. First we should take an act of responsibilities for country. they should not let the child be addictive in the social media because that will bother the children in many ways for example like the simple crime turn into extremist. As a student I am telling that they should treat the children like criminals because If they treat like that ,most of the children are will be in proper guidance but it's heart break full for parents, but the society will be improved by reducing criminalism. I Think My Opinion will be Useful.. THANK YOU
If at 13 a child can be held responsible for a crime, should they not be able to vote for those who make the laws they have broken?
I think that the age of criminal responsibility should not be the same as the voting age because the two involve entirely different levels of maturity. Criminal responsibility involves awareness of right and wrong in the present moment. Voting involved making nuanced decisions that will impact the future of a country for generations to come. The Swedish government's proposal to reduce the age of criminal responsibility to 13 is largely based on the need to prevent gangs from taking advantage of young teens. It is necessary to hold young offenders responsible for serious crimes in order to protect society from having children used as shields by offenders. This is a reactive measure because it stops something that already exists. Voting is a predictive measure because it involves understanding the implications of policies and national priorities that many people, including adults, cannot access.
Some people may say that if teens can be punished, they should also be allowed to vote. This is a fair statement, but punishment is a way of protecting society from harm, while voting is a way of guiding society. Just because the ages are the same, it doesn't mean that the level of maturity are the same.
True fairness is not giving all responsibilities at the same time. It is giving responsibilities when people are most capable of handling them wisely.
I think the age of responsibility should not match the age of voting because teenagers age 13 or older are still growing. Their brains are still developing, especially the part that helps them make good decisions and understand consequences. Teenagers can make serious mistakes, but they are also still learning how to fix those mistakes and improve their behaviour. Because of this, they should be guided and supported rather than treated the same as an adult.
If they are given criminal responsibility at such a young age, it could harm their future instead of helping them change. Being treated like a criminal can affect mental health, education, and chances of getting a job later in life. Punishment alone may not stop crime, especially if young people are being influenced by gangs or adults. Instead, rehabilitation, counseling, and strong support can help teenagers learn from their mistakes and make better choices.
On the other hand, voting requires understanding politics laws and how decisions are affecting the country. Most teens dont have enough life experiences or knowledge to make informed voting choices. That is why the voting age should stay higher than the age of criminal responsibility. The two ages serve different purposes, and keeping them seperate protects young people, holding them accountable in age appropriate ways.
I strongly think that the age of criminal responsibility should not match the voting age.
Adolescents arent suitable to vote because theyre not cognitively mature enough to, but at that age they would have already learned to question the morality of certain actions, such as crime. Holding them responsible for their crimes at a younger age serves as a deterrent, a means to prevent them from repeating the offences in the future, and thus protecting the members of society. As a deterrent, the focus should be on rehabilitation, counseling, and education, instead of harsh punishment meant for adults.
While adolescents are very much capable of taking part in crimes, they are still developing intellectually. To vote means to make pivotal societal decisions that affect thousands. To do such an important task well, in my opinion, requires an intellectual and cognitive maturity that comes with being older.
We all can say that young minds need to develop, to even think of pulling off such crimes at such a tender age. Many say they should not be punished, but what is their reason for doing so in the first place? They should be old and smart enough to differentiate good from bad, at least in such the order of a criminal, because it actually is a different scenario if they are like age 8-9 years. They should be old enough to realize wrong actions, so I believe they can and should face punishment. Opinions below, please!
Hello Topical Talkers!
From my point of veiw, I think that the age of criminal responsibility shouldn't match the age of voting because being punished for a crime is truly different from making informed decisions that affect the whole country. A 13-year-old teen may understand right from wrong, but this doesn't mean they can fully understand politics, laws or the long-term effects of voting. For example, Sweden wants to hold 13-year-olds responsible for serious crimes to prevent gangs from exploiting them. This makes sense for protection, but it doesn't mean these children are ready to vote.
Some might argue that if you can face serious consequences, you should have serious rights, like voting. I can really see their point but I disagree, because voting requires understanding society, not just knowing right from wrong.
Personally, I think that teenagers should learn about politics and responsibilities gradually.
Bye-bye
I do not think the age of criminal responsibility should match the age at which people can vote. These two involve very different skills and maturity.
Criminal responsibility is about understanding right and wrong. Even a 13-year-old usually knows that serious violence, theft, or harming others is wrong. If young teenagers commit serious crimes, it is reasonable they face consequences. Lowering the age in extreme cases can also stop gangs from using children, because minors are often exploited to avoid punishment. Holding them responsible can protect communities.
Voting, however, requires more knowledge and life experience. To vote responsibly, a person needs to understand topics like taxes, education, healthcare, and national policies. Most 13-year-olds are still learning and focused on school or family life. Expecting them to make informed political choices is unrealistic.
Some argue that if a 13-year-old can be punished for a crime, they should also vote. But society already separates responsibilities by age. Teenagers can be punished for breaking laws, yet cannot drive, drink alcohol, or sign contracts. Not all rights and duties start at the same age.
Young voters could also be influenced by parents, friends, or social media, rather than forming their own opinions.
In my view, criminal responsibility should depend on understanding right and wrong, while voting should require maturity and knowledge. Therefore, the two ages do not need to match. Teenagers can face consequences for serious crimes, but voting should remain for older, informed citizens.
I think the age we assume responsibility for serious crimes should not be the same as when we start voting, as it is unfairly comparing basic morals to political education.
By the age of 7, most children have formed solid morals and values, that they learn from adults and media that influences them. They understand that, for example, killing or attacking people is wrong. If children have not fully comprehended it at 13, either their parents are unable to take care of them, or they have some form of mental disability, therefore there are different circumstances.
Voting is a completely different ball game. Basic morals and values will not teach you about the political world, and political education only becomes prevalent at high school level. We cannot trust a child who has not been educated on the world and its issues to vote for their countries leaders, as they quite frankly wouldn't know what to do. While parents would teach them morals, children under the age of 13 are unlikely to be included in more serious political conversations. Even if they do talk to their parents about it, theire view will be biased, that of whoever influences them.
Others might argue that if one could be held responsible for a serious crime one should be allowed to vote, as the responsibility is far less, but I think that it is an unfair comparison.
If politics and sociology were taught to younger children, then we could lower the voting age as they could make an informed decision. Why do you think we lack education in these fields, as they are so important to building an cultured society?
Hi, some good arguments above. At what age do you think politics & sociology should be taught to children? It might be difficult to do this on a compulsory across the board basis, no?
Hello everyone!
When I saw the title of this topic, I wasn't completely shocked but I was actually concerned and got weirdly curious,and I decided to hop in and see the topic, and when I saw it it got me really excited to write my opinion.
I kind of agree with the statement above because it is going to make young teenagers more aware of being in a gang or doing a serious crime,and probably making it stop gangs and lower the number of crimes in the country,but,it can also cause some mental and health problems for the teen whether it's a girl or a boy, and actually, especially if it's a girl,because we all know that boys are a little bit stronger than girls, well not a little bit.🙃 So,if the crime is so serious that the teenager has to go to jail,they don't need to go to the normal jail that adults go in, the country or the government can build a special jail in each country suitable for the teens age, and they can provide food and also provide calling people,but the government needs to know who they will call and be with them through the whole call, and for girls they can provide extra clothes and stuff they will probably need, so it doesn't cause any mental health for them they can communicate with their family easily and also not the cause health issues,the jail can provide a lot of healthy food so when the teen gets out of jail it doesn't affect its development and the teens stays normal human. I hope you liked this.But,if the team does not behave, the government need to be a little bit harsh on them until they behave,then go back to the other jail.
That's it,bye. 👋🏻
I think the age of responsibility should not match the age of voting because being held responsible for a serious crime and being able to vote are two very different things. Criminal responsibility is about understanding right and wrong in extreme situations, but voting requires political knowledge, maturity, and the ability to make informed decisions about society's future.
One example that supports my view is the concern that gangs sometimes use children because they know younger teenagers may face lighter consequences. Lowering the age might reduce this, but it doesn't automatically mean a 13-year-old is ready to take part in democratic choices like elections.
However, others might argue that if society expects someone to face adult-like consequences, they should also have adult-like rights. This links to wider debates about fairness, youth influence, and how much responsibility young people should have in public life.
Overall, I think the ages do not need to match, because punishment and political participation involve different levels of maturity and understanding.
In my opinion, the age of criminal responsibility and the voting age should not be the same because the thinking skills required for each are different. Brain studies show that a 13-year-old can understand that violence is wrong, but their ability to stay calm under peer pressure is still developing. For instance, in Sweden, the government is considering lowering the age limit to 13 to tackle "gang exploitation." Criminals often use children to avoid tough punishments. Lowering the age is meant to break this cycle. However, allowing 13-year-olds to vote will not solve the issue. It could overwhelm them with problems they cannot fully grasp. Some argue this creates a "Responsibility Paradox." They claim that if a child is considered mature enough to go to prison, they should also be mature enough to have a political voice. This leads them to see it as morally inconsistent to treat children as adults in one way while denying them the rights of adults in another.What do you think ?
THANKS !
I think the age of responsibility should match the age of voting because if you are old enough to make deliquent decisions and get charged for them as someone older than you would then you too should have the powers older people then you do. However others might argue that at nether age can you fully know what you are doing due to how the brain devolpoes and grows at different stages. They could also say at a younger age the our cognitive abilities at a younger age may be not quite ready yet to make an informed decision whether that's something bad or good simply because at a younger age you can't think it through yet. Despite that I believe that bad comes with good and if there are negatives at a younger age there too should be benefits as well. If kids can get in trouble for all of the bad things they do then they should have more benefits to keep them off that road. In conclusion for every negative kids face there should be a benefit and if that's voting then let it be.
I believe the age of responsibility should not be the same as the voting age.
One reason is that countries like Sweden are only lowering the age to 13 to stop gangs. They want to prevent criminals from using young children to do their crimes. For the government , 13 is just a number they chose to help lower the crime rate.
Also, if we let 13 year olds vote, we would have millions of middle schoolers making huge decisions. Most people in my age
( aged 12 ) haven't learned how taxes or international laws work yet. We need more time to learn about the world before we choose a leader.
On the other hand, we can’t just move the crime age up to 18 to match voting. If we did that gangs would keep using younger kids because they would know those kids wouldn't get in trouble.
That is why I think these two ages should stay different. One is for safety and the other is for when we are fully grown up.
I hope my opinion is understoodable for everyone ☺️
I think that the age of responsibility should match the age of voting because if you are considered old enough at 13 to be apart of the decisions of who makes the laws and is the voice of your country then it would make sense that you could be held responsible for your actions criminally. If a 13 year old does a crime it shouldn't be much different from an adult because at that age you should be conscious of your actions, which leads onto the fact that being conscious of your actions means you'll know who you're voting for and probably have a reason, whether that be your parents or because you've actually done research, 13 year olds are aware of what they do. For example in South Africa there are quite a lot of gangs that have children doing their work for them, if those children got arrested and sent to Juvenile detention that would protect lives and maybe even those children themselves of what could happen to them in the future.
However other might argue that the age of responsibility shouldn't match the voting age because of the new generation being more aware and cautious will know not to do crime, and because getting punished for a crime is protecting only the community but voting is a much bigger thing, which affects the whole country.
The right to vote shouldn't be decided by age and the ability to get arrested as well, because if you have the competency to do what you do, you made a decision, it could be bad or good but in the end it was a decision. So in conclusion if you can make a decision for the future of your country you should be able to get arrested.
In my opinion, the age of criminal responsibility should not be tied to the voting age because it is not the same thing as recognising the danger as it is recognising the future of a nation. A teenager can recognize the danger or the harm as it occurs because the outcome is almost immediate- somebody gets hurt or broken, rules are broken; actions have consequences in the here and now.
Voting isn't here and now. Voting is a prediction of a possible future outcome, which even grown ups cannot fully accomplish.
The consideration is Sweden to reconsider the age limit for criminal liability stems from an emerging reality where gangs deliberately use young teenagers as shields for violent acts. Laws seeking to address such abuses are not a celebration of teenage potential; they are destruction of abuse in the name of safety.
Another intricate dimension in which elections function is choosing a government. Formulating a policy is a very intricate process and requires foresight into potential consequences that may take decades to manifest. This level of thinking is still a process requiring adult refinements.
Some may argue that automatically giving political influence is justified when legal ramifications are present, but such an argument, while logical, misses the point that legal ramifications maintain order, while political influence decides destiny, and the understandable differences in mental preparedness required for each are significant.
So I'm my opinion, the age of criminal responsibility should not match the age of voting.
I personally believe that making 13-year-olds face the consequences of their actions is okay. The web has shown many instances of people being killed by young minors, which is very bad. I personally believe that young people should also bear the consequences of actions because I believe that someone as old as 13 should be able to know the difference between good and bad. I believe that serious crimes deserve serious consequences irrespective of age. However, some may argue that sending young people as young as 13 is risky because the brain of a 13-year-old is not fully developed, especially areas tied to impulse control. Some may also argue that young people are vulnerable to things like peer pressure and force.
In conclusion I believe that making 13-year-olds accountable for their crime is okay but holding them fully responsible for their crimes like adults is is highly controversial
I personally feel or think that the age of responsibility should match the age of voting because if your society feels that you are to young to choose a leader, then it is kind of unfair to treat you as fully responsible under criminal law. Responsibility must also match decision making because imagine this, if a brain scientist proved that young people lack full adult judgement, then it not fair to say that a 16 year old is too immature to vote and still say that the same 16 year old deserves adult or criminal punishment, that is just contradicting. Secondly, I also feel that criminalising children creates a life long harm because I think that children that enter criminal justice system early are most likely to re offend because what else can I say except the fact that children are stubborn. It also damages their education so if a child is labelled or named a criminal, it feels like a prophesy. If you don't trust a child with a ballot paper, then do not trust them with a full criminal blame which can destroy their future. However, others might feel or argue that if a young person knows wrong from right, then they should be punished like an adult. As for me, I strongly feel that punishment should reflect capacity and not only behaviour.
I think the age of criminal responsibility should not match the age of voting because the two involve significantly different levels of development and decision-making. Voting is about being reliable enough to research information and find out what priorities and values satisfy you the most. Voting can also be to express opinions about what you believe. Whereas criminal responsibility designates to being fully accountable for “illegal actions” and being able to understand the seriousness, which comes with.
For example, a 13 year old or teenager makes a careless “childish” decision during a tense argument or under considerable pressure.
Even this alone should not mean they have the same developed brain as an adult does in heated moments like this to make a calm, decisive choice.
As research says the average teenage brain is still on going brain development and changes throughout, but as if right now the brain is still going through emotional development, which makes it harder to control certain impulses and emotions.
However others might argue that if someone is legally considered to be mature enough to have a say in politics and voting, they should be fully responsible in understanding what their actions do and mean.
In conclusion I disagree with this statement and that 13 year-olds should not be held accountable for their actions and rather “punished” in a different way.
I think the age of responsibility shouldn't mach the age of voting because it isn't the same to have responsibility for your own actions and to have responsibility for the country's government decisions. If you are able to commit a serious crime at 13 then you deserve to be responsible of it, mainly because if you did it once you are able to repeat it and it's unjust if you don't face consequences.
Firstly, the kind of responsibility is different and that 13-year-olds can make serious crimes doesn't change the fact that they aren't mature enough to vote. Besides, it won't be in every situation, but it is special cases with serious crimes and they have an honorable purpose, which is to stop gangs from using children and to reduce serious youth crime.
Secondly, I think if you have committed a serious crime you should face the consequences, so it isn't common and the population isn't concerned by it. Moreover, it can help avoid cases of blatant impunity and make people think twice before committing a crime.
In conclusion, I believe that the age of voting and the criminal responsibility should be different because they are two very different responsibilities who don't match each other. Furthermore, one is based on maturity and the other on responsibility for your own actions, even if they are a big crime.
I don’t think age of criminal responsibility should match the voting age.
Since, voting age is about judgement while criminal responsibility is about Culpability. Voting asks for someone can: understand issues, weigh options, and make a choice that affects society.
On the other hand, criminal responsibility asks for someone who has the capacity to understand right vs wrong and can control their behavior.
I think that the answer to question is more balanced than it seems.
On the one hand, if a 13-year-old is held responsible for a crime, it is fair to say they should also be allowed to vote. If young people are blamed for doing wrong to the nation, then giving them a chance to do good for the nation through voting feels reasonable and could encourage responsibility.An example is Austria, where children are held responsible for crime at 14 and given the responsibility to vote at 16.
On the other hand, being responsible for a crime is very different from being ready to vote. Most teenagers do not have a clear political opinion or a proper understanding of political parties, laws, and long-term national decisions.An example is England where the criminal responsibility comes at 10 but ,the right to vote is still 18 .Also,knowing difference between right and wrong is basic, but voting requires experience and independent thinking. Teenagers are also easily influenced by parents and social media, which makes independent decisions harder.
In conclusion, while it is reasonable to say that if you are held criminally responsible you should also be given the responsibility to vote, making political and critical decisions requires maturity and understanding that usually comes at a later age
I think the age of criminal responsibility should not match the age of voting because, around the age of 13, most people learned to have a very clear "moral compass" with regard to physical injury. One does not have to have a degree in political science to know that violence is wrong. This is natural accountability.
On the other hand, voting is a skill set that must be learned. It's a skill that must weigh the needs of a stranger halfway across the country with regards to your own needs. While knowing the difference between right and wrong in terms of handling an individual- such as not hitting that person(responsibility) and knowing how to balance a national budget ( governance) are important distinctions.
The most tragic thing in a situation like the one in Sweden isn't that there is a great deal of crime leading to exploitation, though that too isn't good- so much as that the criminal organizations use the "15-year-old legal limit" as a loophole and use children as a form of disposable exploitation because the law cant even begin to touch them.
The supposition that "accountability" and "authority" are two sides of the same coin is a gross misconception. We don't give children keys to the family car just because mature enough to be grounded. Maturity is not a static process, people mature at different times.
Understanding the long term ripple effect of our national policies requires a completely different mental process.
By limiting the voting age, society is ensuring that national authority is placed in prepared hands.
Hello straightfoward_artist,
I really like your point about maturity and how different criminal responsibility and voting are. I totally agree that they aren’t the same thing. When you talk about the difference between reacting to a crime punishing and predicting the future voting, it really made me think more.
Like you said, criminal responsibility is about understanding right and wrong right now; like if you hurt someone, you know it's wrong and face the consequences. But voting? It’s a huge deal. You have to think about things that might not happen for years, like policies and what the country will look like later on. I don’t know if most 13-year-olds, or even some adults, could think that far ahead.
Your point about fairness is also really smart. Just because you can handle one responsibility doesn’t mean you’re ready for another one. If we gave everyone all the responsibilities at once, it might be too much to handle, right? Maybe that's why we have different ages for things like driving, voting, and drinking. It’s about when you're really ready.
But, maybe, as you said, when we do give responsibilities, they should be at the right time, when people are capable of handling them wisely. So maybe a 16-year-old is better at voting than a 13-year-old, even if both are old enough to face consequences for their actions.
I think the age of responsibility should match the age of voting because...
First of all, from a perspective of developed reasoning, exponents debate that the brain is not fully developed and if a person is not regarded matured enough to take part in democratic and parliamentary decisions, then they should not be held fully responsible by the law
I think the age of criminal responsibility should match the age you can vote, because when one is legally allowed to vote, he or she should be capable of making choices, whether good or bad. He or she was entrusted with that civic responsibility because at that age, one should be ready to make critical decisions and have a spec or view of their lives. So, yes, I highly agree with the fact that criminal responsibility should be taken at that age. Doing something wrong is a choice, and if you can choose your leaders, you can choose how you live your life and what you do.
I do not think that the age of criminal responsibility should relate to the age of voting because, clearly, there is a large disparity between being responsible for committing a crime and being responsible for participating in a country's decisions in a democracy. Criminal responsibility is the ability to know right from wrong in a particular situation, but knowing how to vote requires a broader base of understandings.
For instance, the government of Sweden has proposed that the minimum age of criminal liability be lowered to 13 years to prevent gangs from using children. However, this does not necessarily mean that children at this age are aware enough to participate in political processes. Another person might argue that since children can be held liable for their crimes, they should also be allowed to participate in voting, but I think the age at which people vote is higher.
I don’t think the age of criminal responsibility should match the age of voting.A example that supports my view is that, if a teenager is involved in serious wrongdoing, it often shows that they are not able to take clear decisions and may still struggle to fully understand right and wrong. Giving voting power to someone who cannot yet make responsible choices in daily life is risky, because voting affects the whole nation.
Voting is not a small decision. It can change laws, leadership, and the country’s future. Giving this responsibility too early is like giving candy(voting) to a child and expecting them to use it wisely.
Holding young people accountable for harmful actions is about control and safety. Voting, however, requires clear thinking, self-control, and long-term understanding, which usually develops later.
Because of this, even if teenagers are punished for crimes, voting decisions should come at an older age when people are better prepared to use that power responsibly.
I think the age of criminal responsibility should not match the voting age, based on the difference between being on the recieving end of the consequences and deciding the future of a nation.
Reducing criminal responsibility, like Sweden intends to do will help stop gangs from using young teens to avoid prosecution. It eliminates a loophole and protects society. However, voting requires something more. It requires the ability to make comparisons in order to understand the long term effects and determine which priority should come first in a society of millions.
If such ages were equivalent, then it would imply that being responsible for blunders itself renders a person ready to assist in leading national policies. However, society has never functioned under such a framework.
One learns to obey directives long before they are equipped to assist in developing such principles.
Separating these ages doesnt diminish fairness. It recognizes that responsibility can start at a young age, but having an influence on the course and route of a country requires greater experience and understanding.
I do not think that the age of responsibility should match the age of voting because it has been made apparent to me that, especially in the UK, there are many children/teenagers that cause a lot of disruption to people and their lives. To support my point, there is a specific story on the BBC called "Southampton youths' anti-social behaviour terrorises businesses" and it has truly opened my eyes that there are many people that around my age or a few years older that manage to cause so much trouble to people's daily lives. They might think that because they are children, the rules don't apply to them, which most certainly seems to be the case in this scenario, and there should be something done about this.
While others might argue that the youths that do these kind of actions are led to think that this is what they need to do to fit in with other people, they are fully conscious and aware that what they're doing is wrong. The need to be "cool" is what causes most of the trouble young people to do such dangerous things. If those children aren't held responsible, they will continue to cause trouble to the people around them and will think that they can just do what they want, when they want.
I agree because at that age you know perfectly what you are doing and the consecuences of your actions. For example at that age the young people go out with their parents so they are not with them and can´t and shouldn´t control from distance so in that situation it´s just you and your friends. In that case if you make something wrong it is your fault and must be judge for it. In the case that someone of that age still something value, in that case have to be judge as he was an adult because he did something that is comparable to that ages (I´m not saying that adults are thieves). Someone may argue the opposite but we come back to the last argument that I said in the last sentence.
In conclusion, kids over 12 or 13 years old must be judge as adults.
I think 15 is better age than 13 for criminal responsibility.
At 13, most children are still growing and learning. they can make bad decisions because they are emotional or influenced by friends. They might not fully understand the long-term consequences of their actions.
If someone under 15 does something wrong, I think they should still face consequences, but the focus should be on helping them improve their behaviour, not just punishing them. Support, guidance, and education are more helpful at that age.
So in my opinion, it is better to focus on rehabilitation for younger teenagers rather than treating them like adults.
The age of responsibility should not match the age of voting because being responsible for a crime and being able to make informed decisions about government are very different. Criminal responsibility is about understanding right and wrong and facing consequences for breaking laws, while voting requires understanding complex political issues and the long-term impact of decisions. For example, Sweden is considering holding 13-year-olds accountable for serious crimes like violent offences, but most 13-year-olds still rely heavily on adults to guide their decisions and may not fully understand politics. However, others might argue that if young teens are old enough to face criminal consequences, they should also have a say in society through voting. Holding a child criminally responsible does not mean they are ready to shape the future of a country; being accountable for a crime is not the same as being capable of making wise decisions for society.
I mostly think that age of criminal responsibility should match the age you can vote, because if you commit a crime that you could be facing jail time for, means that you have enough of brain capacity to think of that crime, to think about consequences you could face, to think how to commit such a crime (planning – if you’re completely sane / another thing if you have mental health problems, then it's totally different). I mean to say if you can think about something like that, you have to be able to deeply think about a topic, so I suppose a person like that would be able to think about who they would vote for. I can't say that their vote would be good to have, because who knows what kind of person, ideology, policies and things like that they would vote, but doesn't really matter. Because voting is democracy, and in democracy, you can vote for whoever you like and want to choose. (I’d like to return to people who have mental problems, disorders, illnesses and such things, I’m personally very sorry for those people, because it must be so hard for them/their family and their loved ones. But however, life isn't always fair to all people, but I don't think other people should suffer, because of them, but strive to help them in whatever way they can. And voting could be one of those things, voting for policies that can help all those people.) I hope you enjoyed this little discussion, and I truly hope I didn't offend or hurt anyone by the things I said (I know some people with mental health problems), so I wanted to talk about that for just a little bit. See you in another discussion. Bye!
I think the age of criminal responsibility should be the same as voting because you are more mature and you are in secondry school so you should take more accountability in what you do and most important of all if you murder someone your obviously gonna go to prison or get some sought of punishment.Also you can't just get away with it because if someone killed you you would expect them to have some kind of punishment.Also for example,if someone killed someone close to you you would want the to be judged and punished so basically that is why I think it is not acceptable for people to get away with things like that
I think that the age of criminal responsibility and the voting age should not be the same because criminal responsibility deals more with the capacity to be accountable for wrongdoings, whereas voting involves showing political governance.
India provides a strong example for this. After the Delhi harrasment case of 2012, the perpetrator of the case was found to be a juvenile. India thus started debating the juvenile justice system. The result of the debate was the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015, which granted the Indian youth the rights of adults if found committing heinous crimes at ages ranging from 16 to 18. The measure was meant to promote justice for the young. It is evident that more serious criminal behavior requires stricter accountability. However, India retains the voting rights of its citizens at the age of 18 under the 61st Constitutional Ammendment. Because, voting demands a completely different set of skills. It involves understanding economic priorities, international alliances, environmental policies, and social welfare systems.
Psychological studies on education in India have also confirmed that levels of civic education awareness among the youth escalate in late adolescence, especially with exposure to such learning among schooled individuals. This has been the reason why certain nations that lowered the minimum age of voters, such as Austria with a minimum of 16 years of age, implemented civic education programs among the youth as part of the electoral process.
So in my opinion, age of criminal responsibility should not match the voting age.