Revisiting a flawed legal paradigm

There was a time in our political history when participation in the electoral exercises was limited to those aged twenty years old and above. The right to vote was not granted to citizens below twenty years old then.

 In the civil world too, 21 years served as the dividing line. The right to enter to contract hinged on that age. For anyone to have the capacity to bind himself legally in a written instrument, the age of majority was 21.

 I went thru that stage, politically speaking. While I was 17, I joined a group that actively campaigned for a Senate seat. We chose him more for vision than his acknowledged oratory. The few times that our candidate came here, I was asked, not only to come up stage in political rallies and speak to large throngs, but, also to share my youthful view during strategic planning. I knew I was not able to contribute anything much but the fact that my thoughts were considered told me I was prepared to vote. Unfortunately, I was under age and could not cast my ballot. My college buddies, too, had not reached the age majority and could not vote as yet. Many of them were more involved in nationalistic concerns than me. In articulating their opinions on fundamental issues, I thought they were more profound than high strung government leaders. Felt discriminated against.

 While we did not enjoy the right to elect our leaders, nor could we validly enter into a contract, we could enlist in the Army to serve in the defense of our country. As military men, we were in the position to offer our lives to the flag. The possibility of dying for the motherland thus became our argument. If we could shed our blood in the battlefield defending the territorial integrity of the country, why would we be deprived of the right to choose who our leaders would be? We felt being discriminated against.

 The discrimination against people in my age bracket then was founded on solid grounds. We could have read tomes upon tomes of social learning, yet we might not have tested our knowledge in actual life experiences as to be able to discern how to act properly or what philosophy was proper to apply.

 Then, institutions of learning expanded their course offerings and built new facilities to meet the influx of thousands of students. New colleges and universities sprouted like mushrooms. Aha, the world started to shrink as communication became sophisticated. Antiquated radio sets got displaced by modern television. Each household could not seem to live without them. Newspaper publication companies multiplied and their circulation increased thousands of times.

 As a result, sociologists proclaimed that our youth began to mature early. The age of discernment was advanced. It was thus necessary to lower the voting age and the age of majority to eighteen. Let us consider criminal law, the age of discernment is crucial. It is a factor in determining culpability. As the penal code totally exempts a nine year old from any criminal liability and more importantly, it also frees a probable offender over nine years of age and under fifteen, unless he has acted with discernment.

 And this is where the reason for lowering our voting age and the age of majority to eighteen and the new law that sought to insure minors from the harshness of criminal sanction seem to travel in opposite direction. The obvious result is the confusion of policies. If our youth are maturing early and, consequently their age of discernment is reached equally early, it is only logical that the minds of youthful offenders have also reached maturity early. The new law is flawed in its approach. It is illogical to think that the criminal acts of youthful offenders are committed with less discernment when we agree that the young are, by the shrinking of the world, maturing early. 

It is good that there are moves to revisit the new law before it further brings havoc to our society. The earlier our lawmakers discern this, the better for our society.