The arbitrary nature of “age of majority” legislation is a problem for people who believe that the maturity of an individual should dictate the age at which they should be legally permitted to do certain things and have the responsibility for their actions.
So my question is this, could a process such as the one used for the emancipation of minors be expanded to provide a legal framework for the granting of such privileges?
The arbitrary nature of “age of majority” legislation is a problem for people who believe that the maturity of an individual should dictate the age at which they should be legally permitted to do certain things and have the responsibility for their actions.
So my question is this, could a process such as the one used for the emancipation of minors be expanded to provide a legal framework for the granting of such privileges?
My only issue is with the cost and bureacracy associated with the procedure. That is, you have a procedure that is a court proceeding that is only invoked in a few cases, involve complete cessation of obligations by other parties, and does not normally result in a positive ruling, to then be ported over to involve presumably higher numbers, be expected to yield more positive outcomes, and involve partial autonomy.
I can see what is to be gained by a child in a very unusual circumstances, say abusive parents, by separating form their parents earier than 18. What is to be gained by a child who wants to drive 2 yrs early, but doesn’t want to accrue the added liability of doing so?
I’m not saying that bureacracy should decide the law, but I find it strange that a single Age of Majority law rubs people the wrong way.
I appreciate your point Kendall, about the cost and bureaucracy, but I didn’t mean exactly like it, but some variation of the theme. The fact that emancipation is currently an overly bureaucratized and restrictive mess run by a bunch of control freaks, doesn’t mean it has to be. 
I think the better solution would be to get rid of “age of majority laws”, and leave it up to parents what a child can or cannot do, before they turn 18. The state should only intervene when the parents are causing great harm to the child.
As far as the laws that dictate what a person should do above that age (before 21), they are abusive: I realize that the age at which one grows into their rights is set arbitrarily, but it has to be based on the age of adulthood: 21 is far too late.
Perhaps if some parents believe their child is not yet an adult at 18, they should jump through hoops, and pay for the legal proceedings that put them in charge of their children for longer. Why should a majority of young adults be treated as children, for the sake of a few overgrown children.
I think the better solution would be to get rid of “age of majority laws”, and leave it up to parents what a child can or cannot do, before they turn 18. The state should only intervene when the parents are causing great harm to the child.
Which doesn’t help much if the child does great harm to me before he does it to himself. If one could keep the consequences of one’s actions “all in the family” then maybe you’d be correct. I’d prefer “approximate, but objectively-based”, than, “hey, you just call it as you see it.”
I appreciate your point Kendall, about the cost and bureaucracy, but I didn’t mean exactly like it, but some variation of the theme. The fact that emancipation is currently an overly bureaucratized and restrictive mess run by a bunch of control freaks, doesn’t mean it has to be.
I understand your point too. I think that it is incumbent upon the child to prove that he or she is mature if he or she is to be emancipated, and it is incumbent on the parents not to get in the way except when the child is in danger of hurting themselves or others. It is also incumbent upon the government to set up OBJECTIVE procedures for allowing a child to prove such.
Also, if the child is so inept at age 18, when they become an adult legally, that they cannot live on their own, and they can prove it, and they can prove that it was a consequence of their parent’s action or inaction, they should have a right to sue for however much support is needed. Child abuse/neglect should be treated seriously in this country.
Which doesn’t help much if the child does great harm to me before he does it to himself. If one could keep the consequences of one’s actions “all in the family” then maybe you’d be correct. I’d prefer “approximate, but objectively-based”, than, “hey, you just call it as you see it.”
I’m not convinced by your argument:
A 20 year old is a responsible adult, and he is treated as such under the law. He faces the same justice, for his mistakes, that a 22 year old faces, so our society obviously considers him an adult. Right?
If you agree, then the next logical step is to assume that the government is restricting such an adult’s freedom, because he poses an additional risk to society, statistically: 20 year olds are somewhat more likely to commit a crime under the influence of alcohol than the average adult. (let’s say that risk is 150% of a normal person’s, although I think that is a high estimate) -this justifies preventing them from drinking.
Doesn’t this approach justify the government taking similar measures against any segment of the population, that is 150% more dangerous, in certain conditions, than the average person? I know for a fact young black mails are far more likely than that to become gang-members: shouldn’t society prevent them from gathering in groups larger than three? There are many other examples.
I’m not convinced by your argument:
A 20 year old is a responsible adult, and he is treated as such under the law. He faces the same justice, for his mistakes, that a 22 year old faces, so our society obviously considers him an adult. Right?
If you agree, then the next logical step is to assume that the government is restricting such an adult’s freedom, because he poses an additional risk to society, statistically: 20 year olds are somewhat more likely to commit a crime under the influence of alcohol than the average adult.
No that’s not the next logical step, and that is not the assumption. I’m suggesting to you that there is a difference between a child and an adult. That difference has to do with their cognitive development and their ability to make life choices for themselves. You certainly would agree that letting a 5 yr old drink and drive is reckless? Any five year old? That cause is a fact based effect of a developmental process that all children go through. Now an age limit, however “arbitrary” is based upon that causal connection. However, unlike a person’s judgment it is an objective means to assess and agree to what that limit is. I would expect it to be conservative, that is, not strike at the median, but at some point at which a majority of young adults are able to make those decisions.
It confounds me when, in a supposed interest in not having rights violated, someone suggests that not only should I trust a child’s judgement about such things as driving on the road, but I should add to that the judgment of the average adult about their child’s judgment. It’s anon-objective determination and laws need to be objective. How exactly does one go about assessing and calling into question the judgment process of another human being in a court of law, if this child now goes and hits and kills mine through negligent actions?
By sacrificing the objective nature of a law in order to get a more “accurate” judgment of a child’s actual cognitive state (and you imply a situation more in line with his actual rights) you get neither objectivity or accuracy.
(let’s say that risk is 150% of a normal person’s, although I think that is a high estimate) -this justifies preventing them from drinking.
Doesn’t this approach justify the government taking similar measures against any segment of the population, that is 150% more dangerous, in certain conditions, than the average person? I know for a fact young black mails are far more likely than that to become gang-members: shouldn’t society prevent them from gathering in groups larger than three? There are many other examples.
This would complete equivocation through the use of statistics which are in and of themselves a form of causal ignorance. I rejected your first premise and this doesn’t follow. Its is the cause and effect which is critical here. That’s what separates this type of law from pure pragmatistic regulation which is what your second example is.
To Kendall:
You certainly would agree that letting a 5 yr old drink and drive is reckless?
Sure. That’s however not saying much, since I feel the same way about letting a 55 year old do that.
What I’m disagreeing with is the government not allowing a twenty year old to drink, because of the officially stated and exclusive(1.) reason that they tend to get behind a wheel (statistically, more often than older people).
Now an age limit, however “arbitrary” is based upon that causal connection. However, unlike a person’s judgment it is an objective means to assess and agree to what that limit is. I would expect it to be conservative, that is, not strike at the median, but at some point at which a majority of young adults are able to make those decisions.
I agree. However, that conservative estimate, according to our justice system, is definitely at 18, not 21. (hence my statement at (1.))
What leads me to that conclusion?
A vast majority of people between the ages of 18 and 21 face the same justice a 40 year old would face, because their “cognitive development and ability to make life choices”(your words) is considered that of an adult.
(A twelve year old, on the other hand, faces a different standard of justice, because he is considered a child.)
This was my assumption, and this is what I asked your opinion on: Can you give me a reason why a 20 year old should be considered a child when it comes to drinking (not drinking and driving, just drinking and then making a choice, like a 30 year old), and yet perfectly capable of deciding right from wrong, hence facing “adult” justice? (and the choice of whether to join the army, take up a mortgage, donate a kidney etc.)
If you cannot, then my assumption surely stands, he is an adult, with restricted rights.
It confounds me when, in a supposed interest in not having rights violated, someone suggests that not only should I trust a child’s judgement about such things as driving on the road, but I should add to that the judgment of the average adult about their child’s judgment.
In this case, government can legislate as the owner of the road, not as a “legitimate government, concerned with individual rights”. (The obvious contradiction comes from the fact that our government is not entirely legitimate, because it owns roads)
In general, the owner of the road can decide on the age limit of its clients, and bear the legal responsibility for that decision. In my opinion, the owner should always prevent everyone who’s under the influence of alcohol from driving: including children who’s parents think their offspring is safe to drive drunk. Therefor, on our public roads all drinking and driving should be illegal, just as it IS: The parent’s judgment doesn’t matter.
I understand your point too. I think that it is incumbent upon the child to prove that he or she is mature if he or she is to be emancipated, and it is incumbent on the parents not to get in the way except when the child is in danger of hurting themselves or others. It is also incumbent upon the government to set up OBJECTIVE procedures for allowing a child to prove such.
Also, if the child is so inept at age 18, when they become an adult legally, that they cannot live on their own, and they can prove it, and they can prove that it was a consequence of their parent’s action or inaction, they should have a right to sue for however much support is needed. Child abuse/neglect should be treated seriously in this country.
Agreed. But Kendall makes a valid point that at some point there has to be a cut off. I mean a 7 year old could probably learn all the actions it takes to be physically able to drive a car, but that does not mean that 7 y/o should be driving a car.
There has to be a lowest age limit. The same 7y/o could rationalize the consumption of alcohol and may even be able to drink without overstepping his limits (unlike most people at least once or twice) but should he be drinking?
There has to be a lowest age limit. The same 7y/o could rationalize the consumption of alcohol and may even be able to drink without overstepping his limits (unlike most people at least once or twice) but should he be drinking?
The key for me here is that someone posits an unique and “exact” age of transition, meaning those who by law cannot partake until later are by definition “restricted”. OK, I’m willing to listen.
Laws have to be objective. So if someone wants to posit a criteria by which we can have an objective law that determines the exact age, I’d like to hear it. If you sacrifice the objectivity of the law in order to be more “exact,” your exactness is an illusion. You’re left with a law that is still subjective, and probably less exact than the objective one.
I recognize there is a “theoretical” conflict. however, I’m not particularly bothered by the somewhat arbitrary nature of a cut off. It does not lead to the slippery slope that Jake calls out because its not based upon statistical ignorance.
As zip points out the basis in reality is a definite transition of maturity. That is the rights based principle. To me it starts to become irrelevant where you pick the cut off, but there is going to be some cutoff.
To Kendall:
Sure. That’s however not saying much, since I feel the same way about letting a 55 year old do that.
What I’m disagreeing with is the government not allowing a twenty year old to drink, because of the officially stated and exclusive(1.) reason that they tend to get behind a wheel (statistically, more often than older people).
I agree. However, that conservative estimate, according to our justice system, is definitely at 18, not 21. (hence my statement at (1.))
What leads me to that conclusion?
A vast majority of people between the ages of 18 and 21 face the same justice a 40 year old would face, because their “cognitive development and ability to make life choices”(your words) is considered that of an adult.
(A twelve year old, on the other hand, faces a different standard of justice, because he is considered a child.)
This was my assumption, and this is what I asked your opinion on: Can you give me a reason why a 20 year old should be considered a child when it comes to drinking (not drinking and driving, just drinking and then making a choice, like a 30 year old), and yet perfectly capable of deciding right from wrong, hence facing “adult” justice? (and the choice of whether to join the army, take up a mortgage, donate a kidney etc.)
If you cannot, then my assumption surely stands, he is an adult, with restricted rights.
<snip>
Based on his statements, I think Jake is complaining about the time between ages 16-21 (in the U.S.) where teenagers gradually accrue the privileges of adulthood. This is an awkward period, both legally and developmentally.
At 16, you can drive, but not vote or drink, and it requires special legal proceedings to be emancipated from your parents. You can be tried as a minor or an adult depending on the crime and the mood of the court.
At 18, you can drive and vote and are emancipated, but can’t drink. You will be treated as an adult by the courts.
At 21, you’re finally a full adult, with drinking privileges and everything else.
Jake seems to specially object to the 18-21 period, where you’re legally liable as an adult, but can’t legally drink.
In this case, he’s right. At 18, you’re given all the legal responsibilities of adulthood, but it’s still a crime for you to drink alcohol.
I understand the reason the law has developed as it has. It’s a combination of historic inertia and allowing for gradual personal development. (For instance, the idea that your parents should financially cover you while you’re learning to drive.) Personally, I agree with KendallJ:
I’m not saying that bureacracy should decide the law, but I find it strange that a single Age of Majority law rubs people the wrong way.
The problem is that there’s not a single age of majority, at least in the U.S. Until you hit 21 you can do this but not that, and maybe this other thing, depending on what state you’re in. I hope other countries have laws that make more sense regarding this.
I have heard of the “under 21” drinking restriction in the US being disregarded if the individual belongs to the military. The idea is: if the “kid” is going to go abroad and possibly get killed, they should at least be able to have a drink before they go.
Agreed. But Kendall makes a valid point that at some point there has to be a cut off. I mean a 7 year old could probably learn all the actions it takes to be physically able to drive a car, but that does not mean that 7 y/o should be driving a car.
There has to be a lowest age limit. The same 7y/o could rationalize the consumption of alcohol and may even be able to drink without overstepping his limits (unlike most people at least once or twice) but should he be drinking?
Well, 12 is when people have learned how to focus on the abstract. It’s called The Formal Operation Stage. That’s when it begins, so that’s when testing should begin. The testing process shouldn’t be so easy that your average 12 year old will pass of course. The intellect of the student should determine how fast he or she progresses, and there should be different parts which depend on different kind of knowledge. There would be written and oral types of quizzing as well as performance testing. Of course certain things will have certain other things as prerequisites. This testing should go all through 12-24, because some people, particularly those with handicaps, won’t be able to live on their own at 18 regardless of parenting method. There of course would be opt-outs based on agreement of parents and the offspring vying for adulthood which could occur at 18.
This of course is a radical change and most people in this country would not want it. So this is one of the last things we would aim to change about society. However it’s still one of the things that would eventually have to change.
