Gabrielle Sing, Woodleigh School

"We're not Morons": governments should butt out of young people's lives

Certainly, Governments have traditionally limited the rights of people under the age of eighteen in a number of ways, but it is not, and has never been because they were under the impression that young people are universally and inevitably ‘morons’.  Indeed, the protestation ‘We’re not morons’ is a precipitate, ill considered, immature and petulant statement which surely lends some credibility to the (possibly imagined) argument which the young person seeks to refute. Any restriction of young people’s freedom is in protection not only of them, but of the whole of society, now and in generations to come.

The rights; the very freedoms of which we speak, which governments are bound to uphold for all of society fundamentally centre on the right to life, the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression.  Simple this might seem if one considers it in relation to one person, but governments have a duty to protect such rights in the interests of all of their citizens. What if one person’s freedom of expression should be the means of injuring another, or if completely unviolated privacy left both authority and society unaware of a great wrong? What if either or both of these instances denied one person, or many, the most basic, fundamental right to life? Restrictions on the freedom of young people; indeed, the basic behavioural restrictions which constitute most common law and order is in the interest of preserving these rights as securely as possible for every member of society. The limitations on young people are more numerous and marked because, youth being the most impressionable phase of life, they have need of protection, instruction and the acknowledgement of boundaries which will mould their values and decisions in the future.

The traditional restrictions, such as legal ages for drinking, driving, smoking and voting are generally accepted, but occasionally called into question. Some argue that it is arbitrary to say that a person of 18 may do any of these things, while that same person at 17 and 11 months may not have been any less capable of doing so, but if the age were reduced by that month, 17 and 10 months would then be argued as an appropriate age. The line must be drawn somewhere, or the process of rationalisation would continue and immature young people would be able to do all of those things by virtue of being just another month younger than the new legal age limit. Surely enough there are inconsistencies, and some are worthy of debate. In some states one is able to drive a car at seventeen – but that is hardly an issue worth a great deal of contestation. More so, perhaps, is the fact that in some instances in Australia a sixteen or seventeen year old is liable to be tried in a court as an adult, and yet in almost every other facet of adult life, eighteen years is the benchmark.

To be tried as an adult before the age of eighteen, however, the offense committed must be deemed worthy of such a trial. If the person on trial is perceived to have acted in the fullest awareness of the illegality of their actions, to have entered into it with a similar understanding to that of an adult, then two years age difference should be no barrier to appropriate justice.  It is also argued that compulsory education until the age of sixteen is far too great an imposition upon those who, not being academically inclined would be happier and more productive in the independent workforce. However, the education received by the end of Year Ten is not onerous, nor is it an unreasonable expectation that all Australian citizens should attain such a level of literacy, information and development before embarking upon life as a functioning and potentially influential member of our society.

It is also indisputable that with education comes the opportunity for a higher and more productive form of employment. Students who, at the age of fourteen or fifteen,  are hardly likely to be in a position to make an entirely informed decision in regards to leaving school nevertheless deserve the chance to become a productive and fulfilled member of the community, which the extra education may well better facilitate. Quite apart from the benefit to the student, society itself should not be subjected to a degree of illiteracy and ignorance which may be, in the long term, socially or politically harmful.  

Whilst it is arguable that, in a culture which constantly exposes children to adult subject matter from a young age, the notion of a ‘child’ is outdated, exposure to material alone does not constitute adult understanding. Children are introduced to ‘mature’ themes, images and events through the media of television, film, literature, popular art, internet access and certain games, but they are by no means necessarily able to form considered or appropriate judgements or opinions. Restriction of video games with an R18+ rating, and censorship of certain internet sites may irk those who would argue that this prevents adults from legally accessing such material. However, is the protection of children not more important than indulging the quite possibly dubious inclinations of a small number of adults?  For the good of others in the community, as well as for the protection of the child itself, violence and immorality must be restricted in such ways as are possible. It is of course hopelessly naive to imagine that young people are not aware of the very real violence in the world, but surely there is not need to promote or endorse it.

The very young people who form the centre of this debate will one day be the adults who must make wise, informed and empathetic decisions regarding the children of the future. Young people will not always be young. Since society must live with the adult, surely it is advisable to seek to protect, educate, and instil a sense of morality, decency, respect and compassion in the child.