Age and maturity

[Educated Stupid]

Given that there was no thread about age and maturity in general, I felt it appropriate to make one about it. (The other thread concerning age is only about sexual matters)

The age of eighteen really seems like an arbitrary constant, at least, to me, in defining when a person becomes an adult and is no longer considered a minor. I don't know why eighteen is considered the magical age in which a person is suddenly expected to be fully mature, and why ages below that are considered immature, because maturity is not suddenly gained upon reaching the age of eighteen. Maturity is a process for people, and some people become mature faster, while some take more time to mature. Therefore, it seems silly, to me, to place a number on something which is unique to everybody. Those who mature faster might be left waiting for years to finally be considered mature by most other people, and those who take longer to mature might find themselves just suddenly thrown into forced maturity, when they have not yet attained it and are still in the process of reaching complete maturity.

The age of eighteen also brings more rights and responsibilities to people, but is it really right to set a sort of limit to when people become mature enough to make an informed decision in elections, when they become mature enough to be part of certain groups of people, or when they become mature enough to drink alcohol? Are all those under the age of eighteen so immature that they cannot themselves think critically about the information they see? Granted, I'm not expecting minors to have Solomon-esque levels of wisdom, but at the same time, I don't find it fair how minors are all thought of as one group of people, a group which is incapable of thinking rationally rather than emotionally, and so a group which are excluded from some things.

Now, here are some selected examples of age limits which I find unfair:

• The voting age limit of 18. While most critics of lowering the voting age to 16 argue that it might lead to uninformed decisions, or decisions driven by parents, couldn't that apply to anyone voting? Couldn't anyone voting be uninformed, even if they were above the age of 18? Couldn't people above the age of 18 be influenced by what other people think?
• The drinking age limit of 21. Why, even though people are considered adults at the age of 18, can they not be trusted to be responsible enough to drink alcohol (which, might I add, mostly only affects themselves) until 3 years after they reach the supposed age of maturity?
• Age limits on political candidacy. While I agree that most people who are below the age limit may not necessarily have the experience or maturity required to have a place in a political office, I believe that age and intelligence are mutually exclusive. Therefore, someone who is below the age limit can still have sufficient political knowledge, and vice versa, someone who is above the age limit could be completely ignorant about politics but still be able to run for President.
• Age of criminal responsibility. I find it condescending that a child who did something wrong cannot be held liable for what they did simply because "they're just kids" or because "they're only young, so they shouldn't be punished." If someone's old enough to do a crime, then I say that they're old enough to do the time, though I'm not going to be unreasonable and say that 10-year-olds should be executed if they commit a horrible crime. They might not understand what they did wrong, but they should be shown what they did wrong, so that they could learn from it. They shouldn't be let off simply because they're younger.
• And, finally, the most important of all - age limits on websites. I admit, I've lied about my age before to get on websites which I wanted to get on, and to this day I still don't understand why there are age limits. It's as if a person below the age of 13 cannot even be taught to not give out their personal information on the Internet, or to not know right from wrong. Children are taught in schools about Internet safety from a young age, so it's almost like they're expected to sit and wait until they reach a magical age at which they can suddenly register on almost any website, and only then use the knowledge they've learnt.

Here are some things I'm not saying:

• Kick children out of their homes and trust them to be able to fend for themselves. No, but I'm saying that if they can find a way to be financially stable and be independent, then there should be nothing stopping them.
• Abolish all age limits. Even I can't expect an infant to suddenly be able to name the policies of all the different parties and then make an informed decision as to which one is right. And I definitely do not support children drinking or having sex when they're not even old enough to know their alphabet and times tables.
• Bring child labour back. No, I don't support 12 year olds working, either.
• Let minors do whatever the hell they want. No way. Just because I'm saying that they can be mature enough to know the consequences of their actions, that doesn't necessarily mean that all minors will be like that, and that certainly doesn't mean that I think they should just be allowed to do whatever. Everyone should show restraint, even those above the age of majority.

TL;DR - Age, maturity and intelligence are mutually exclusive, and I don't see why those under the age of majority cannot be trusted to make informed decisions for themselves.

 

[Teddy]

I know tons of older teens and young adults who are just as if not more immature than your average 14-16 year old. It's even sadder to see 30 year olds acting like they're 16. There's a difference between having fun regardless of age and just being a downright ignorant.

I feel like this is only a "problem" for America and some European countries. Too many adults are too scared to grow up or know nothing.

Anyways, I do agree that people under say 18 can be mature. In fact, there are. And actually mature in the sense they are responsible, use common sense, etc. Not the corrupt ones who think they're mature sorely because they watch MSNBC, love Obama, or watch ABC shows.

 

[Picklechu]

The voting age limit of 18. While most critics of lowering the voting age to 16 argue that it might lead to uninformed decisions, or decisions driven by parents, couldn't that apply to anyone voting? Couldn't anyone voting be uninformed, even if they were above the age of 18? Couldn't people above the age of 18 be influenced by what other people think?

Old enough to fight, old enough to vote. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

The drinking age limit of 21. Why, even though people are considered adults at the age of 18, can they not be trusted to be responsible enough to drink alcohol (which, might I add, mostly only affects themselves) until 3 years after they reach the supposed age of maturity?

Yeah, this is stupid. organizations like MADD keep it that way, and no politician wants an attack ad saying that he or she raised the drinking age and wants more people to die in alcohol-related car accidents or corrupt the youth, regardless of whether or not it's true. Technically speaking, each state sets it at the age they supposedly want, but the federal government withholds highway funding if they don't set it at twenty-one.

Age limits on political candidacy. While I agree that most people who are below the age limit may not necessarily have the experience or maturity required to have a place in a political office, I believe that age and intelligence are mutually exclusive. Therefore, someone who is below the age limit can still have sufficient political knowledge, and vice versa, someone who is above the age limit could be completely ignorant about politics but still be able to run for President.

Again, a line has to be drawn somewhere. I know some eighteen year-olds who would, quite frankly,make excellent legislators, and, conversely, I know some fifty year-olds who are shitty legislators. Besides, a person who is "completely ignorant about politics" is unlikely to rise to the presidential level, and, if they are, they would be one of the hundreds of nobodies who run every four years without receiving a single vote.

Age of criminal responsibility. I find it condescending that a child who did something wrong cannot be held liable for what they did simply because "they're just kids" or because "they're only young, so they shouldn't be punished." If someone's old enough to do a crime, then I say that they're old enough to do the time, though I'm not going to be unreasonable and say that 10-year-olds should be executed if they commit a horrible crime. They might not understand what they did wrong, but they should be shown what they did wrong, so that they could learn from it. They shouldn't be let off simply because they're younger.

And, finally, the most important of all - age limits on websites. I admit, I've lied about my age before to get on websites which I wanted to get on, and to this day I still don't understand why there are age limits. It's as if a person below the age of 13 cannot even be taught to not give out their personal information on the Internet, or to not know right from wrong. Children are taught in schools about Internet safety from a young age, so it's almost like they're expected to sit and wait until they reach a magical age at which they can suddenly register on almost any website, and only then use the knowledge they've learnt.

Again, a line has to be drawn. We wouldn't want someone who did something stupid when they were a child to affect their whole lives (seventeen year olds may not really fit the bill, but, again, that line is arbitrary and has to be somewhere). In addition, a website does not want to be liable for exposing kids to nasty people like Nick Bate, porn, violence, and other things like that. It's a lawsuit waiting to happen, not to mention the potential for public outrage.

 

[AnOminous]

We wouldn't want someone who did something stupid when they were a child to affect their whole lives (seventeen year olds may not really fit the bill, but, again, that line is arbitrary and has to be somewhere).

Emphasis on "stupid" as opposed to something else. For instance, if someone got in a drunken fight at a youthful age (or arguably any age), or vandalized some stuff at the age of 17, or just otherwise got into some mischief, it's probably okay to let that slide. If they sadistically murdered someone or abused children at that age, though, it's something different.

 

[Educated Stupid]

Old enough to fight, old enough to vote. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Yeah, this is stupid. organizations like MADD keep it that way, and no politician wants an attack ad saying that he or she raised the drinking age and wants more people to die in alcohol-related car accidents or corrupt the youth, regardless of whether or not it's true. Technically speaking, each state sets it at the age they supposedly want, but the federal government withholds highway funding if they don't set it at twenty-one.

Again, a line has to be drawn somewhere. I know some eighteen year-olds who would, quite frankly,make excellent legislators, and, conversely, I know some fifty year-olds who are shitty legislators. Besides, a person who is "completely ignorant about politics" is unlikely to rise to the presidential level, and, if they are, they would be one of the hundreds of nobodies who run every four years without receiving a single vote.

Again, a line has to be drawn. We wouldn't want someone who did something stupid when they were a child to affect their whole lives (seventeen year olds may not really fit the bill, but, again, that line is arbitrary and has to be somewhere). In addition, a website does not want to be liable for exposing kids to nasty people like Nick Bate, porn, violence, and other things like that. It's a lawsuit waiting to happen, not to mention the potential for public outrage.

I agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and I'm not by any means saying "let newborn infants vote, drink and go on pornographic websites." However, what I am saying is that where society draws that line seems arbitrary to me. If we make these lines overly rigid, then it makes it apparent that your worth in society is defined by your age alone, not any other factors, and that these lines assume utter incompetence until the point where you reach that age.

As for the website thing, while a line does need to be drawn somewhere, it's important to note that anyone above the age of 18 can also make stupid decisions on the Internet, and those decisions can just as well affect the rest of their lives.

 

[Picklechu]

I agree that a line has to be drawn somewhere, and I'm not by any means saying "let newborn infants vote, drink and go on pornographic websites." However, what I am saying is that where society draws that line seems arbitrary to me. If we make these lines overly rigid, then it makes it apparent that your worth in society is defined by your age alone, not any other factors, and that these lines assume utter incompetence until the point where you reach that age.

Of course the line is arbitrary. Going on a case-by-case basis wouldn't be feasible.

 

[Educated Stupid]

Of course the line is arbitrary. Going on a case-by-case basis wouldn't be feasible.

Perhaps not, but an arbitrary line doesn't seem all that logical. It's just saying "if you're below this age, you're obviously incapable of doing it, end of."

 

[Picklechu]

Perhaps not, but an arbitrary line doesn't seem all that logical. It's just saying "if you're below this age, you're obviously incapable of doing it, end of."

Let's flip it around, then--what line would not be arbitrary?

 

[Educated Stupid]

Let's flip it around, then--what line would not be arbitrary?

No such line exists in practice or in theory without requiring everything to be on a case-by-case basis.

Arbitrary lines are practical, but don't consider any other factors apart from the one they are demarcated by.
Case-by-case "lines" are logical, but impractical, and too lengthy to implement.

Therefore, I can see why arbitrary lines are used - for practical purposes.

However, even then, those arbitrary lines can and will be crossed. There will be people who drink below the age of 21. There will be people who register on websites they're not meant to register on. There, historically, have been people lying about their age to serve in the armed forces. Who do we hold liable for when those cases happen? Do we hold liable the people who set those arbitrary lines, because they weren't enforced rigidly enough? Or do we hold liable the people who went against those lines, because they went against the lines deliberately and with premeditation?

 

[Picklechu]

However, even then, those arbitrary lines can and will be crossed. There will be people who drink below the age of 21. There will be people who register on websites they're not meant to register on. There, historically, have been people lying about their age to serve in the armed forces. Who do we hold liable for when those cases happen? Do we hold liable the people who set those arbitrary lines, because they weren't enforced rigidly enough? Or do we hold liable the people who went against those lines, because they went against the lines deliberately and with premeditation?

We're a society of laws, so this.

 

[MrsGoodman]

What bugs me the most is charging minors as adults. Unless you afforded all the legal rights that come with adulthood, how can we possibly hold you to an adult standard of justice and take away those rights before they've even been granted?!

If you want the right to charge a 16-year-old as an adult, you had best be prepared to give them all the rights and privileges that come along with it. Otherwise, they're a goddamn minor and it doesn't matter whether they put a bullet through someone's skull. Heck, that matters more because they're a minor and the reason we treat them as minor is because they don't have a fully fused prefrontal cortex!

 

[Philosophy Zombie]

The problem is that age is treated as a hard-and-fast line when it's a gradient. The difference in somebody's neurology between the day before their eighteenth birthday and the day afterward is negligible, but only when they are eighteen do they gain legal agency. I wouldn't regard most 18- and 19-year-olds still in high school as being "mature adults".

What bugs me the most is charging minors as adults. Unless you afforded all the legal rights that come with adulthood, how can we possibly hold you to an adult standard of justice and take away those rights before they've even been granted?!

If you want the right to charge a 16-year-old as an adult, you had best be prepared to give them all the rights and privileges that come along with it. Otherwise, they're a goddamn minor and it doesn't matter whether they put a bullet through someone's skull. Heck, that matters more because they're a minor and the reason we treat them as minor is because they don't have a fully fused prefrontal cortex!

The prefrontal cortex doesn't reach full maturity until the age of 25; neural development in general extends far beyond the teenage years. The age of 18 is pretty arbitrary in that sense. If a 15 to 17-year old causes serious harm to others (say, aggravated assault, rape, battery, murder), it's unfair to the victim for the perpetrator to only be sent to a juvenile detention center where their slate is guaranteed to be wiped when they turn 18. Teenagers are old enough to have a developed understanding of morality, unlike younger children. A 17-year-old rapist deserves to be on the sex offender registry.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

I think that there should be a statistical calculation which is used to determine things such as how likely someone is to commit a crime as an adult if they did so as a child and then policy would be based on that

 

[ChuckSlaughter]

Age of criminal responsibility. I find it condescending that a child who did something wrong cannot be held liable for what they did simply because "they're just kids" or because "they're only young, so they shouldn't be punished." If someone's old enough to do a crime, then I say that they're old enough to do the time,

This is dumb because left on their own they usually mature past that point, often they'd still be in jail long after they'd have naturally lost the impulsiveness and other juvenile characteristics that got them in trouble. Also they'll come out and be assholes so it's a complete waste of time jailing kids.

it's unfair to the victim for the perpetrator to only be sent to a juvenile detention center

I don't need roving bands of psychopaths raised in prison so that you can feel your justice has been served if you believe in justice you're ignorant. It's a rare thing.

 

[Vitriol]

if you believe in justice you're ignorant.

easy on the ad hominiems.

 

[autisticdragonkin]

easy on the ad hominiems.

I think what @ChuckSlaughter meant is that if one believes in retributive justice then one is ignorant
Deterrence is another important part of a justice system for stopping rational actors from committing crimes. Although there aren't many rational actors in the world they still will be able to get away with crime if a purely rehabilitative system is implemented since there was nothing wrong with them in the first place

 

[ChuckSlaughter]

easy on the ad hominiems.

Maybe a little harsh but no matter which end of the justice system you're on you're going to be disappointed with it. It's just what we have and I guess it could be worse but I get the feeling 99% of the population thinks it's something other than what it really is. Sending someone through it is basically writing them off from society at this point. Thinking that it's going to protect you is pretty much a gamble too go ahead and report even serious crimes to the police and see if they give a fuck.
It barely even works and certain members of our society, especially young people in the wrong places are funneled into it and come out of it as menaces to the rest of society. I don't need to get violently robbed because 10 years ago you were angry little billy stole your bike and it was important for you feel like he got his, it's not a joke and once you push him that way he's probably not going to manage to get away before he's fucked.

Yeah we don't need to be sending little kids through a system designed to let scared old white people feel like they have a tool to give young niggers what they deserve.

 

[AnOminous]

Part of the reason retribution is legitimately part of a justice system is that while it may not be rational, a lot of the people who make up society believe in it and would take matters into their own hands if they viewed crime as generally not being punished.

Part of the social compact is the agreement that in return for foregoing their natural desire for revenge against those who wrong them, society will take care of such harms as if they were attacks on society itself.

The more serious crimes that "deserve" greater sentences are also generally justifiable on grounds of incapacitation (that particular offender will not be committing any crimes while incarcerated), specific deterrence (deterring that particular offender), general deterrence (demonstrating to other potential offenders that if they commit such a crime they will also be punished), and other reasons.

Since these modes of criminal justice often lead to the same scaling of the severity of a crime, it's not as difficult as it might seem to come up with reasonable sentences.

Juveniles are generally and correctly regarded as not being fully mentally developed and less responsible for their actions. For example, minors can't generally have contracts enforced against them. The purpose of the juvenile system is, generally, to turn out a functional adult, which is usually still possible at that time.

Prosecutors, though, have broad discretion in many jurisdictions to direct particular offenders to the adult rather than the juvenile system when they feel it appropriate, and this often occurs with murder and other extreme crimes of violence.