should mentally ill people be allowed to vote or be on a jury or have positions of responsibility? should trans people? should women while on their period or during menopause? should drunk or high people?

No. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. No.

why no to mentally ill people and drunk and high, but yes to other mentally disturbed people?

Interesting. I'd say it's a case by case thing, based on the illness in question. Tans usually doesn't effect jury or voting, nor do periods or menopause. Drunk and high do.


@ArthurM because they aren’t mentally disturbed.

@covfefe trans ppl, they have a diagnosis before they can go ahead with hormones and surgery. and women on on the blob are not ill, but disturbed in that their mind changes. idk about menopause actually. id add another category: sleep-deprived. that causes as much mental distrubance as drunk driving

Well nobody's going to be 100% capable. There has to be some compromise. Drunk/tired is interesting because really those things are legal ans self induced so why should they be banned from things?

@Armadillo yeah. another category: dumb ppl?

hmm. in england at least being drunk is not an excuse in law for commiting a crime, because ppl choose to be drunk. and there are rules about sleep and driving, im not sure if laws. but all the categories are about someone's mental capacity during the time they need to do something important. it could become an important issue with realtime monitoring technology and stuff. how many people in positions of responsibility and authority are drunk or sleep deprived or even hungry (low blood sugar effects decision making) right nw

1) Women on their period are not “mentally disturbed.” Neither are trans people. Under the law, mentally disturbed = institutionalized.

2) How are you supposed to check if a woman’s on her period? You can’t just have the Bailiff performing gynecology exams on women.

3) How would you classify “dumb people” with regards to jury service?

4) No judge would ever allow a drunk, high, or sleep-deprived person to sit on a jury.

5) The list of people you’re excluding has increased from drunk and high people, to trans people, then to women on their periods, then to sleep deprived people, then to “dumb people,” and now to people who just haven’t eaten enough. On what legal grounds could you exclude this many people from a jury pool?

6) Are you proposing that the government spy on everybody at all times, just to make sure we’ll be able to sit on a jury?

@covfefe Yup, I agree. The whole thing is kinda weird.


oh ffs i just typed a long answer to those 6 points and it got lost.

basically, this is just a thought experiment, a game. im not suggesting or proposing we must or even should implment any of this, and im only briefly imagining what it would take practically if we did.

few things: all of my suggested categories are people who have a degradition in decision making abilities to some degree. there's probably more. and this isnt just about jury, any position of responsbility -whatever that can mean. woman's minds change during their time of the month - a study for example about women preferring typically masculine men when on, and less masculine more caring men when off - would this affect someones chances in a trial? i imagine that it would to some extent. would it affect, say, job interviews? i can imagine it would.

i disagree with your mentally disturbed = instiutiionalized statement. i dont think thats true under law or practice or common usage. and again, trans ppl are (contreversially) diagnosed with gender dysphoria before transitioning.

Some women on their periods might still be more cognitively capable then those who aren't or even men. And perhaps women are MORE capable during their periods then not. Men also have cycles as well, so it isn't a gender thing though. In cases of juries, as long as they pick a wide set of people then it should even out. As for posistions of power, as long as they were voted in it dosen't matter. Really I hope people are aware of the things that influence them and adjust accordingly.

This question feels like bait. The straight-forward answer I'd give is this: if the person is not considered mentally competent enough to be an emancipated adult, they probably shouldn't be voting (because they're very likely just being used as a second vote by their caregiver). Otherwise, they should (provided they're citizens and otherwise would be eligible to vote). This is because you simply can't have a category that removes the right to vote without it becoming a dangerous catch-all for those with power to shunt political opponents into. This gets especially true of "intelligence tests," which I've heard people discuss, because testing for being "intelligent" or "informed" enough can become a disguised way to check for being right-minded (according to the test writer). I imagine Hillary would have won if those in power during the last election cycle could have written a "competency test" to judge whether people were "intelligent" enough to vote. Anybody who indicated they'd vote for Trump would have been automatically disqualified, either overtly or by some careful questions checking to see if you agreed with his "crazy" positions on various issues.


@Segev Yeah he's basically asking whether intelligence should be taken into account for posistions of power. Not only does this undermine freedoms, but also does not acurately represent the population. A government should have power by the consent of the people governed. The governed would included dumb people, drunk people, and women during periods so it's reasonable that they get a vote. A jury consists of the accused's peers which would include those groups as well. You're idea could lead to a nanny state or even a North Korea style dictatorship.

@Armadillo , I don't entirely agree that a government is best if people who are in impaired states or in bad moods are "represented," but I do agree that preventing it will limit freedom to be represented too much. The point of representative government isn't to ensure that government is actively doing what you want it to. The point is to limit government's ability to actively do things you don't want it to. We elect representatives in the hopes that they, knowing they're dependent on pleasing us for their positions, won't abuse their power over us. Further, the notion of representative government is rooted in the idea that people won't knowingly elect representatives which will harm their own interests. Sadly, this LEADS to a government ACTIVELY doing things to us that enough of us think they want done. But that's not the PURPOSE.