Hacker News Reader

Comment by tombert | Hacker News Reader

The voting age being 18 was changed in the 70s, primarily so they could more easily justify sending 18 year olds to fight in Vietnam. Prior to 1971 it was kind of agreed that 18 year olds were still basically children.

Even now, though, in every state in the US, you're not a full adult when you're eighteen. You're not allowed to buy alcohol until you're 21. In a lot of states you're not allowed to buy cigarettes. We've decided that, despite being "grown ups", they're still not grown up enough to be trusted with these things.

To be clear, I'm perfectly fine throwing her in prison for the rest of her life without parole, like she would be had she committed the crime in a state without capital punishment like NY. I'm just particularly turned off by the death penalty. I can sit here and wax philosophical as to why but I'm sure you've heard the arguments and it would be a tangent.

View on HN

> The voting age being 18 was changed in the 70s, primarily so they could more easily justify sending 18 year olds to fight in Vietnam. Prior to 1971 it was kind of agreed that 18 year olds were still basically children.

I think you have it backwards: "They" didn't have any trouble sending 18 year old that couldn't vote to fight in Vietnam. It was those 18 year olds who demanded a greater say in the political process because that was being demanded of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_...:

> This means young men could be required to fight and possibly die for their nation in wartime at 18. However, these same citizens could not have a legal say in the government's decision to wage that war until the age of 21. A youth rights movement emerged in response, calling for a similarly reduced voting age. A common slogan of proponents of lowering the voting age stated "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote".

Also, according to that article, there were efforts before 1971 to lower the voting age, they just couldn't pass the very high constitutional amendment bar.

Sure. I am just saying that until the 70s eighteen year olds weren’t even considered “full” adults with all the privileges thereof. They still aren’t given that they’re still not allowed to drink (in the US).

The state-administered judicial violence of locking someone in a cage until they die of old age strikes me as pretty similar to the state-administered judicial violence of executing someone, in terms of severity.

I don’t love the way American prisons work either, but I guess we have to agree to disagree on that particular point.

The point (or one of the points) is that execution is reversible. I mean there are some cases of people who sat in prison for decades when it was determined they were innocent. If you accept potential failure of the legal system (which is obviously the case) how can you be a proponent of executions?

Where do you get this "Prior to 1971 it was kind of agreed"? Agreed by whom? Go read the biography of David Farragut

I extrapolated from the fact that 18 year olds couldn’t vote prior to 1971. I will admit that “agreed” might have been a bit too strong of a word, but it seems like the United States didn’t think that 18 year olds were “full” adults yet.

I don't want my taxes going to private prison companies for the rest of her life.

I also don't want to see or hear about executions with whatever methods, it's revolting, but then again, public executions in Europe stopped like what, less than 200 years ago? And the public craved it.

Fun fact, France practiced guillotining through 1977.

There is no middle ground.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com