The debate on lowering the voting age to 18 was often framed this way: “If you are old enough to fight, you are old enough to vote.” That is a strange argument. The ideal soldier, when ordered to charge up the hill, obeys without questioning the order. We don’t want the soldier to say, “but Sarge, they have rifles and they are shooting at me. I don’t think that’s such a hot idea. Let’s discuss it.”
On the other hand, you want a voter to be thoughtful, to weigh issues, to make rational choices. I’m not advocating raising the voting age from 18 to 25; I am saying that we ought to recognize that there is no specific age when adulthood is attained. We can get a driver’s license at 16, vote at 18, drink at 21, run for the House at 25, the Senate at 30, and for President at 35. I personally would feel very uncomfortable about an 18-year-old as President. I’ve been 18, and as I remember, I did not always use good judgement.
An Easton boy named Qu’Eed Batts was 14 when he shot and killed another teenager in a gang initiation. He was sentenced to life in prison. Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli was quoted in the March 20 issue of the Morning Call on this issue. He said, “An offender under age 18 who is capable of intentionally taking a human life and who has done so is a danger to the community, and life in prison is an appropriate punishment.”
No, it isn’t. Fourteen-year-old kids do really stupid things, even murder. The Batts kid deserves punishment, therapy, rehab, and education, but life in prison is not acceptable. I’m not sure that life in prison is an appropriate sentence at any age. I do know that Mr. Morganelli should be voted out of office.
Tomorrow: Plea bargaining and the Rutgers case
No comments:
Post a Comment