Is a smart 16 year-old more "legally mature" than a dumb 25 year-old?

[Monte314]

Should the "age of majority" (attainment of legal adulthood: right to marry, vote, drink/smoke, work, leave home, etc,) include adjustments for intelligence, responsibility, experience, and other factors that might accelerate (or delay) it for the good of the individual and society?

How could such adjustments be implemented practically? What would they be?

[Mozzes]

Should the "age of majority" (attainment of legal adulthood: right to marry, vote, drink/smoke, work, leave home, etc,) include adjustments for intelligence, responsibility, experience, and other factors that might accelerate (or delay) it for the good of the individual and society?

How could such adjustments be implemented practically? What would they be?

At the moment I think implementing this system would be about as practical as driving to mars. I can just imagine the mammoth bureaucracy that would accompany this - the departments of responsibility, IQ and experience all contained within the Bureau of Legal Maturity.

Actually I don't guess it would be as bad all all of that. Maybe tests for IQ, knowledge of local and federal law and a review of one's juvenile record and school transcripts. Though it probably would require at least a modest expansion of government at some level to administer the procedure (probably federal since local and state governments are already maxed out fiscally)

[Erika Redmark]

There's also emotional maturity to think about. Goodness knows there are people who are intellectually solid but lack other components of "mature" behaviour.

[Karamazov]

It doesn't seem feasible. Imagine the micromanagement needed for such an task (seeing how bureaucracy works) I'd say 17 or 18, in regards to what was listed above, is an appropriate enough age, considering the rules are already habitually broken anyways.

[Noehelia]

In US I think they have emancipation of minors that covers some of the rights of an adult. However I do not see how changes in rights of a "dumb" 25 year old could be implemented. Would people pass from committees every year that would decide whether a person has reached maturity or not? Maturity has subjective characteristics.

[seoa]

ha - this is just an indirect way to re-introduce sexual discrimination into politics.... (who let those silly women vote anyway?)

traditional IQ tests are biased towards the male brain, coz that's the context in which they were created, so guys get better scores on them (relatively speaking of course - obviously women are so fabulous that even with this handicap we still do stunningly well)

Give Women the Vote! (now where is my Green, White & Violet outfit.... must be in the wash.... :))

[thod]

I don't see smartness as being a factor. A dumb 30 year old is more mature than a brilliant 12 year old. Maturity is about several factors. Control of emotional state is obvious. A firming of opinions due to experience is another.

It is only when one has seen and done enough that one is able to say "this is what I think", instead of "this is what I think today". The dumb guy working as cleaner will have had very different experiences to the college professor. This will have lead him to differing conclusions. He will however have opinions on what is right and wrong, and which changes will improve his life. If the smart guy cannot see that his perspective is affected by his circumstances he is not so smart. If he walked a mile in the other guys shoes, say a homeless guy, or a man trying to feed a family on minimum wage, his perspectives would change.

[Bandit]

Interesting, however there is the biological and developmental factor to account for. I read somewhere that the brain, actually does not finishing developing until the age of 21.. Although said minor may be brilliant in so far as book studies and IQ tests, yet their brain is still continuing to develop and mature. I believe that it had something to due with the frontal cortex and risk behaviors/maturity...

[Brilliance]

That's correct Bandit, the Frontal Cortex finally develops at 21, which pretty much is why teenagers are so argumentive, etc. Also, dental doesn't completely finish growing until 25, same goes for vision (I read somewhere). It's interesting, I think their shouldn't be a 'legalized' age on anything less than 25, because its incredibly naive to believe a standard can be set for the stupidest group of people on a majority look. But then we'd never hear the end of complaints.. 0_0

[Motor Jax]

That's correct Bandit, the Frontal Cortex finally develops at 21, which pretty much is why teenagers are so argumentive, etc. Also, dental doesn't completely finish growing until 25, same goes for vision (I read somewhere). It's interesting, I think their shouldn't be a 'legalized' age on anything less than 25, because its incredibly naive to believe a standard can be set for the stupidest group of people on a majority look. But then we'd never hear the end of complaints.. 0_0

yea like... "hey, i just turned 21. what do you mean i'm not old enough to drink? what?!? you wanna fight, buddy!?!"

yea, 25 sounds pretty good...

[Jakalwarrior]

Myelination of the prefrontal (or was it just frontal? been a long time since neuro psych class) cortex allows your brain to stop using the rear old emotional based part so darn much. This process doesn't complete for most people until their 20s.
I saw where they did a brain scan on a genius teenager and his brain functioned as normal (emotional part still primary). They were looking to see if he was primarily using his front part of his brain, the logic part, early to account for his genius.

[ScottH]

I do think that certain younger people are more mature and capable in some ways than less capable--yet older--others.

That said, I once proposed (in discussion) that we create a system of tests to measure maturity and determine "point" of majority, rather than use an arbitrary age. (I similarly argued that contracts, drinking, and military service should become possible at the same moment :-)

Anyway, after much debate, we concluded that such tests would be impractical to create, monitor and administer; that life itself is a test but results are ambiguous so there is no de-facto record one could consult (school records, etc.); and finally, that from a fairly broad perspective, it seems arbitrary age is no less likely to do a good job than any other method, yet it's cheap, easy and unambiguous.

In the USA it is possible to emancipate a child, a process that makes them an adult earlier than otherwise "when and as necessary."

It works.

[Jgib5328]

I think the idea may sound good in theory, but could never be practiced (how could you practically and objectively differentiate?). Plus, someone who might have an IQ of 200 may be underdeveloped socially or vice versa. Like others have said, the development stops from the beginning to the late 20s, that's when a person becomes a fully developed person. I think the 18 year old is just arbitrary and was chosen because it's a nice number. Was I any different from being 17 to 18? There was no real difference, but I guess you have to choose a limit somewhere and it might as well be a nice clean number.

[Beery Swine]

Any fool can critisize and I, like most fools, am no different. I think America's current age of consent laws are blind and unthinking at best.

[Jgib5328]

Any fool can critisize and I, like most fools, am no different. I think America's current age of consent laws are blind and unthinking at best.

They should just make everything 18, drinking, gambling, voting etc. and driving should still be 16. You do need an age limit somewhere. A 5 year old shouldn't be able to purchase alcohol or gamble.

[zibber]

Context-sensitive laws would be ideal, but a logistic nightmare. (Not to mention the subjectivity that would undoubtedly come into play.)

[Minxz]

It would be nice if you could count on mature parents to make these decisions as they would know their children the best. Thats not going to happen though as many parents set no limitations and other to much. I could also hear the chorus ITS NOT FAAAAAIR....

I've always thought that if you take away the forbidden aspect of it then most people will will lose interest in abusing whatever privileges were originally restricted.

[athiah333]

Yes they are more mature (but then again I would say that). But in practice it would be incredibly difficult to implement.

[athenian200]

Should the "age of majority" (attainment of legal adulthood: right to marry, vote, drink/smoke, work, leave home, etc,) include adjustments for intelligence, responsibility, experience, and other factors that might accelerate (or delay) it for the good of the individual and society?

How could such adjustments be implemented practically? What would they be?

I'd say that I've seen some kids who end up taking responsibility for their well-being at a young age, despite not having any rights. There are kids who manage to become more intelligent, responsible, and capable than the adults around them, but it's definitely not the norm.

I think that people do indeed mature at different rates, but it would be impractical and confusing to try and implement such adjustments. I think the age has to be left alone, but that in extreme cases where the restrictions are very, very obviously unfair and harmful to that individual's potential, something should have to give. If that "minor emancipation" thing is really done, then that's pretty much what I was thinking of.

The system we have isn't perfect, but much more complexity wouldn't work that well. The only thing I might change (perhaps because I don't understand the reasoning behind the current system) is to change the three (driving, adult, drinking) ages to one age... probably either 18, or 20. It seems silly to have them in three separate ages.

[TheLastMohican]

Context-sensitive laws would be ideal, but a logistic nightmare. (Not to mention the subjectivity that would undoubtedly come into play.)

That sums up my thoughts on it. I would certainly like having such a flexible setup for my own convenience, but if I was the one who had to deal with the management, I wouldn't touch it. Case-by-case emancipation by the court system is about as far as it can go without bureaucratic chaos.

[blueback]

Well, it seems to me the only way to be sure someone is responsible is to give them a chance and see what they do.

So maybe instead of trying to make the decision all at once we should have a two step process.

1) emancipate everyone at 12
2) unemancipate those who prove they aren't yet responsible

The fun thing about this system is that it would only punish those who deserved it. If a 13 year old managed to always make the right decision the system would never bother them again. If they made the wrong decision we would unemancipate them until, say 15, then emancipate them again and see what they do. Theoretically we could continue that formula for their entire life. If they still can't be responsible at 30 we can just make them a ward of the government for another year. It's not like they could legitimately complain about it since the punishment was only in response to their own irresponsible behavior.

[TheLastMohican]

Well, it seems to me the only way to be sure someone is responsible is to give them a chance and see what they do.

So maybe instead of trying to make the decision all at once we should have a two step process.

1) emancipate everyone at 12
2) unemancipate those who prove they aren't yet responsible

That's some nice thinking out of the box. It would make for more paperwork, but I like the concept.
I do think 12 would be too young; perhaps it should be based on the progress of myelination. (The frontal lobes are not completed until about 25, but we could take earlier milestones, perhaps around 14-15.) It would be handy to have some neuroscience to back up the number.

[Mozzes]

That's some nice thinking out of the box. It would make for more paperwork, but I like the concept.
I do think 12 would be too young; perhaps it should be based on the progress of myelination. (The frontal lobes are not completed until about 25, but we could take earlier milestones, perhaps around 14-15.) It would be handy to have some neuroscience to back up the number.

Emancipation isn't the same thing as reaching the age of majority. Emancipation simply frees a child from legal parental control. It might actually socially destructive decision since it would allow already neglectful parents to abandon their children at the age of 12. And while emancipation does allow some adult rights (ability to sue on their own behalf, control over their income) it doesn't always grant rights or access to services with an age requirement - voting, purchasing of alcohol or tobacco or firearms, marriage, military service, driver's license. Sort of like having all the tortures of being an adult with none of the perks.

[le Duc]

Is a smart 16 year-old more "legally mature" than a dumb 25 year-old?

I think the Darwin Awards are the only thing that can adequately govern the latter...

[NephilimAzrael]

This I believe would cause a rigidity to the evaluation of concepts such as maturity and intelligence which would increase the number of administrators and bureaucracy. It would also cost too much in terms of assessment.

[MindOverMatter]

I think that some 16 year-olds are more mature mentally than some 25 year olds but i don't see a logical way of measuring maturity. I do like bluebacks general idea but it probobly would create more problems than it would solve and still would require a fair amount of government spending to enact and maintain.