Age of Majority

[bilby]

A recent opinion piece in New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429900.200-let-science-decide-the-voting-age.html?full=true), Laurence Steinberg suggests that the various ages at which adulthood is bestowed upon us for various purposes can have a more scientific footing than at present, if we distinguish between 'hot' and 'cold' cognition - the degree to which adolescents have time to make calculated, well advised and thought out decisions.

Prof. Steinberg suggests that for such things as driving a car, or consumption of intoxicants, the age of majority should be set at 18 or even 21, as these responsibilities are unsuited to young brains; while such things as granting consent for medical procedures or clinical trials, voting, or standing trial as an adult in a court of law, are able to be undertaken responsibly at a younger age, perhaps 16, or even younger.

I can see some sense in setting the minimum driving age to 18, although I suspect that allowing people to drive and to start drinking simultaneously is a poor idea, regardless of physiological considerations, which would imply setting the drinking age higher - perhaps 21.

I can also see some justice in lowering the age at which young people can vote, although obviously the demographics suggest that, regardless of how just this might be, it would be very unpopular with conservatives, as 16 to 18 year olds tend not to be politically conservative. 16 year olds were allowed to vote at the recent Scottish referendum; should Scottish 16 year olds be allowed also to vote in parliamentary elections?

What do people think? What are the age limits for various 'adult' rights and responsibilities in your jurisdictions, and are they appropriate? What would you like to see changed?

 

[gmbteach]

Teaching in high school, as I am at the moment, I can tell you that students who are in year 11 (about 16 - 17 year old) are eager to experience everything life has to offer them, including drinking - especially driving and drinking.

I strongly suspect that despite the legal age for consumption of alcohol is 18, many of the high school students do consume it from an earlier age (yeah I know - no shit Sherlock). In an ideal world, it would be preferable to have the drinking age, for when supervised by an adult, lowered so that students can experience the effects it has. For example - in the home, or at a family function, with adults monitoring the situation.

I quite like the laws here in Queensland that means that drivers are provisional for 3 years and that they have restrictions on the speed they can do, the size engine they can own/drive, and the zero tolerance for alcohol. This should be kept, but could be expanded to include other aspects such as the drinking.

 

[Toni]

Where I live, it is not illegal for parents to allow their own children under the legal drinking age of 21 to drink alcohol. Pouring Junior a beer during a football game or glass of wine at Christmas is fine. It is illegal for adults to allow those under the age of 21 who are not their children to drink alcohol on their premises. However it is extremely common for people to do as gmteach suggests: allow young adults to consume alcoholic beverages, sometimes in great quantities, so that the kids can 'experience the effects.' Indeed, until recent adoption of 'social host laws' which make adults responsible if an underaged kid gets drunk and then drives off drunk or dies of acute alcohol poisoning or wanders into a lake and drowns, parental sanctioned parties with drinking were common. Such parent sanctioned parties still occur, but less common since the adoption of such laws.

Of course, so much depends on how responsible the parents are, how they manage their own drinking, and how nostalgic they are for their 'glory days' of drinking copious amounts of liquor and a belief that kids will be kids and alcohol is a necessary component to having fun, the more the better.

For myself? I don't see anything wrong with pouring kids a bit of wine at dinner and it's not the worst thing in the world if your high schooler has a beer while watching a game with his mom and dad. It seems to me that parental/family drinking habits would have a profound effect on influencing how kids view alcohol consumption. If Mums and Dad cannot get through an evening without a little drinky-poo or half a case of brews or if all parties involve a lot of alcohol--kids pick up on that just as much as when alcohol is regarded as evil.

I think that moving the driving age to 18 wouldn't be a bad idea at all. In my area, it is less expensive to get your license if you are 18 or older. My observation is that more kids are waiting until 18 to drive. Of course the easy availability of public transportation or ease of walking to get to destinations is a heavy factor. For kids with limited or no public transportation or who live out of walking distance to schools, etc. (not uncommon in rural areas or smaller towns), waiting until 18 means big limitations on attending school events, participating in activities, etc. not to mention social activities.

Voting age in the U.S. is 18 and I think that is about right.

My biggest concerns about lowering the drinking age to 18 is that it would further increase the number of younger teens who drink.

 

[laughing dog]

When I was young, I thought the age of majority should be 18. As I got older, I thought it should be 21. Now I think it should be 2 years older than my current age.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It can work. When I was a child my uncle forced me to smoke a cigarette. Abusive perhaps, but I have never wanted one since. Never started smoking when many of my peers did.

 

[NobleSavage]

I should never have been allowed to drive when I was 16. Nor any of my friends. If you can die for your country at age 18 you should be allowed to drink. Change either variable, but make them match. I'm not getting older, everyone is just getting younger and they should not be on the road or in a bar.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Prof. Steinberg suggests that for such things as driving a car, or consumption of intoxicants, the age of majority should be set at 18 or even 21, as these responsibilities are unsuited to young brains; while such things as granting consent for medical procedures or clinical trials, voting, or standing trial as an adult in a court of law, are able to be undertaken responsibly at a younger age, perhaps 16, or even younger.

I don't like the idea of consenting to medical trials or other procedures for which there is compensation at 16. 21 would be more like it. I have no problem with consenting to most procedures at 16, though.

I can see some sense in setting the minimum driving age to 18, although I suspect that allowing people to drive and to start drinking simultaneously is a poor idea, regardless of physiological considerations, which would imply setting the drinking age higher - perhaps 21.

I agree, they should not be at the same age. I take the opposite approach, though--I think alcohol should be phased in at a substantially lower age.

What do people think? What are the age limits for various 'adult' rights and responsibilities in your jurisdictions, and are they appropriate? What would you like to see changed?

Beyond what I've said above I would like to see bypasses available for all important age-related functions. You can go before a proper authority (I think psychologists would be much better than judges) and present your argument for why you should be given permission and why you're responsible enough to handle it.

 

[Bronzeage]

As one of the first persons to benefit from the 26th amendment, I often find it difficult to explain the mood of the nation when this amendment was passed. The War in Viet Nam was winding down and when it was realized that the average age of a combat soldier(people who actually got shot at) was 19 years, there was a wellspring of guilt. We gave helicopter gunships to men who were too young to buy beer in their hometown. They couldn't vote either. This seemed to be wrong in some vague way and the 26th amendment was really just a lame apology for the poor treatment.

Rather than raise the age for service in the military, we lowered the voting age.

This was the signal to lower the age of majority for most other matters as well. This included right to buy alcoholic drinks, enter into contracts, etc. A few states reconsidered the drinking age thing, hoping three extra years to think about it would make produce more responsible drinkers.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Beyond what I've said above I would like to see bypasses available for all important age-related functions. You can go before a proper authority (I think psychologists would be much better than judges) and present your argument for why you should be given permission and why you're responsible enough to handle it.

I agree with this statement, though it should cut both ways. There are plenty of irresponsible adults who should not be allowed to drink, ever.

Some of the comments throughout this thread are almost frightening. Is alcohol consumption such a part of who we are that a guided tour might be given by mom an dad? Not in my world. I could not help by reading through this thread and substituting marijuana for alcohol and how might the opinions change.

I don't care for the taste of alcohol, I never did, nor does my daughter. Though I never told her, if she had to pick a vice, between the two, I'd prefer she went with weed.

I believe the age of driving in Ohio is quite restrictive between 16 and 18. I think that is fine to accommodate working teens.

Voting could be placed to 15 or 16 and all voters should have to answer a few basic questions about what they are voting on/for, less they just mark boxes.

Recently a 10 year old in Pennsylvania intentionally killed a 90 year old woman and is to be tried as an adult.
Knows right from wrong? Yes. Understands the repercussions of his actions? I'm not so sure. Should be able to control his emotions? I don't think so.

 

[Under the Rose]

In Yukon, Canada, the age of majority is accepted as being 19, which is also the legal age to consume alcohol.

Voting age is set at 18 for all territorial and federal elections.

One may apply for a graduated driving license as early as age 15 with a range of parameters that gradually decreases as one completes each level of the process.
http://www.drivingtest.ca/how-to-get-a-drivers-license-in-yukon/

 

[Bronzeage]

Anyone who is paying attention knows an 18 year old still has a lot to learn. This is why the military wants men at 18. They want start with a relatively blank slate. The amount yet to learn for those younger than 18 is an incredible hurdle.

Many years ago, I attended a prayer breakfast at one of the local semi-mega churches. They have their own school, grades 1 through 12. It was a somber occasion. They had just learned that one of their star students had been killed the night before in an car accident. He received the hottest Mazda sports car of the day for his 16th birthday. To everyone's great surprise, he lost control and left the road at a high rate of speed. I knew the exact spot where this happened. It was the local "dead man's curve" in a rural part of the parish. I remember going through this curve in a 1960 Ford Galaxie at an exhilarating speed. I lived to talk about it. The boy's best friend was in the car. He was critically injured.

Everyone at the breakfast spoke of what a fine young man he was and his lost future. I kept my thoughts to myself, which were, "How did such a smart kid come from such stupid parents?" They gave him the keys to one of the fastest production cars of the day and he only had about 6 weeks driving experience.

Part of the problem was his parents could afford a Mazda sports car. Another part of the problem was the parents thought way too much of their son and of themselves as well. The car was his reward for doing well in school. One has to ask, why? The only true reason is because they could. Doing well in school is a child's job. It is expected, without any more reward for their performance than the room and board they receive.

I'm the oldest of four children and have a few children of my own. I have had the opportunity to observe children learn and grow. It's fascinating. One thing that is even more fascinating is watching adults who firmly believe that anyone who can speak in complete sentences has all the abilities and mental functions of a full grown adult.

 

[fromderinside]

Hey. I'm OK with a society granting majority to conform with presumed responsibility. What I'm no comfortable with is a failure of the society to bring those who have rights to the understanding of what are the requirements and effects of exercising these rights. People shouldn't be allowed to vote until they understand the meaning of government, its operation, and their responsibilities as citizens to preserve and enhance it. They shouldn't be put in positions of caring for persons until they understand what are and the consequences of their failure to properly do so. people shouldn't be allowed to go into individual combat in a culture they neither understand nor with whom they can communicate. Nor should they be permitted to do so until they fully appreciate the consequences of their being sent into such situations for their future mental and physical conditions.

I'm all for a cavalier age of majority declaration. I'm just not in favor of anyone being subjected to its consequences until they are fully competent to deal with them without loading down our system, their families, and their futures.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Beyond what I've said above I would like to see bypasses available for all important age-related functions. You can go before a proper authority (I think psychologists would be much better than judges) and present your argument for why you should be given permission and why you're responsible enough to handle it.

I agree with this statement, though it should cut both ways. There are plenty of irresponsible adults who should not be allowed to drink, ever.

But how would you reasonably enforce it?

Some of the comments throughout this thread are almost frightening. Is alcohol consumption such a part of who we are that a guided tour might be given by mom an dad? Not in my world. I could not help by reading through this thread and substituting marijuana for alcohol and how might the opinions change.

I don't care for the taste of alcohol, I never did, nor does my daughter. Though I never told her, if she had to pick a vice, between the two, I'd prefer she went with weed.

I don't care for the taste of it, either. My lifetime drinking would leave me safe to drive. I've never had enough to know if I like the feeling or not, from descriptions I don't think I would.

That being said I favor parents allowing (not requiring) their kids supervised drinking in moderation.

I believe the age of driving in Ohio is quite restrictive between 16 and 18. I think that is fine to accommodate working teens.

I don't know the rules there but it sounds reasonable.

Voting could be placed to 15 or 16 and all voters should have to answer a few basic questions about what they are voting on/for, less they just mark boxes.

I doubt someone of that age is going to make reasoned decisions on voting. I have no problem with 18, I wouldn't even mind 21.

Recently a 10 year old in Pennsylvania intentionally killed a 90 year old woman and is to be tried as an adult.
Knows right from wrong? Yes. Understands the repercussions of his actions? I'm not so sure. Should be able to control his emotions? I don't think so.

This I disagree with unless they have already had multiple run-ins with the law. If they've been through the juvenile system multiple times and it hasn't helped then they're probably beyond help and the adult system makes sense.

 

[bilby]

Funny; the OP article suggests that driving should be left late - 18 or 21; and that voting should be allowed earlier - 16 or even younger. And yet many people here are suggesting the reverse.

Cold cognition tasks, such as voting, giving consent to medical procedures (including abortions), and standing trial as an adult are, supposedly, things a person can typically cope with at age 16.

Hot cognition tasks, such as drinking alcohol or taking other drugs, driving a vehicle, or serving in a combat role are, supposedly, better left until 21 or even later.

I suspect that some posters are simply reflexively defending the status quo, without really looking at the physiological implications.

Of course others have raised genuine practical issues - such as rural teens needing to be able to drive in order to work, or to avoid being socially isolated; I am not sure that these considerations outweigh the risk of letting insufficiently mature minds control a motor vehicle though; it may be hard to hold down a job when you live in a remote area and have no wheels, but it is even harder when you are dead.

 

[Toni]

Funny; the OP article suggests that driving should be left late - 18 or 21; and that voting should be allowed earlier - 16 or even younger. And yet many people here are suggesting the reverse.

Cold cognition tasks, such as voting, giving consent to medical procedures (including abortions), and standing trial as an adult are, supposedly, things a person can typically cope with at age 16.

Hot cognition tasks, such as drinking alcohol or taking other drugs, driving a vehicle, or serving in a combat role are, supposedly, better left until 21 or even later.

I suspect that some posters are simply reflexively defending the status quo, without really looking at the physiological implications.

Of course others have raised genuine practical issues - such as rural teens needing to be able to drive in order to work, or to avoid being socially isolated; I am not sure that these considerations outweigh the risk of letting insufficiently mature minds control a motor vehicle though; it may be hard to hold down a job when you live in a remote area and have no wheels, but it is even harder when you are dead.

Actually, in the US, one can serve in a combat role in the military at age 18. The reality is that there are no wars where children are not killed outright and through the disease and starvation that comes from war. But that isn't what we are discussing here.

I don't think we should be sending 18 year olds into combat. Actually, I'm a pacifist, albeit an imperfect one. I don't really think we should send anyone into combat but 18 is too young. 21 is a more reasonable age, developmental wise.

I wonder a bit if I am not just being hide bound to the status quo when I say that I think the voting age at 18 is probably right or how much of it is based on the fact that I was one of the first to be able to vote at age 18 instead of 21. Or whether it is based upon what I recollect about my own teenaged years or raising my own children and what my observations are about social and brain development as well as political engagement. The truth is that I think that 16 year olds are more easily distracted and more easily influenced than are 18 year olds.Of course laws passed today will apply to the sixteen year olds who cannot vote yet. But also will apply to the 10 year olds, the 6 year olds, etc. I don't think most 16 year olds are ready to engage in the political system yet. Some are, sure. But not most.

Morally, I have no problem with 16 year olds drinking but I know that 16 year olds who drink are more likely to have problems with alcohol abuse vs those who begin drinking at 21 or later. I also know that plenty of 16 year olds drink. I think that's a problem. I also think that making alcohol legal for 18 year olds will put more alcohol into the hands of 16 year olds, 14, year olds, 12 year olds and that's a bad thing.

I don't think anyone under the age of 18 should be charged as an adult. Knowing that something is wrong putting that into context and understanding and appreciating the consequences are completely different than knowing right from wrong. So is having a reasonable shot at being able to be in control of one's emotions and behavior.

 

[Toni]

Funny; the OP article suggests that driving should be left late - 18 or 21; and that voting should be allowed earlier - 16 or even younger. And yet many people here are suggesting the reverse.

Cold cognition tasks, such as voting, giving consent to medical procedures (including abortions), and standing trial as an adult are, supposedly, things a person can typically cope with at age 16.

Hot cognition tasks, such as drinking alcohol or taking other drugs, driving a vehicle, or serving in a combat role are, supposedly, better left until 21 or even later.

I suspect that some posters are simply reflexively defending the status quo, without really looking at the physiological implications.

Of course others have raised genuine practical issues - such as rural teens needing to be able to drive in order to work, or to avoid being socially isolated; I am not sure that these considerations outweigh the risk of letting insufficiently mature minds control a motor vehicle though; it may be hard to hold down a job when you live in a remote area and have no wheels, but it is even harder when you are dead.

The younger driving age is a hold over from days when kids took on adult responsbilities at far younger ages than most (but not all) kids today. In plenty of states, you can legally drive younger than 14 if it is for farm business. The truth is that farms relied heavily on anyone big enough to do the labor. Driving requires less physical strength than pitching bales of hale onto the back of a wagon and is less dangerous than operating a lot of farm equipment.

Safer vehicles, lower speed limits, more restrictions on driving licenses have reduced teen deaths in driving accidents over the past 30 years or perhaps more.

http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/77_fig1.jpg

 

[Under the Rose]

Based on voter participation, I think that we need to engage more people in the collective decision making processes (government). Perhaps one way to do that would be to have graduated levels of participation starting at a younger age to vote for municipal government, maybe 17, regional or provincial at 19 and federal or national at 21. Our education systems should be instrumental in teaching the importance of participating in the democratic processes. Perhaps they are doing more now but when I went to school, very little was taught beyond a very basic look at the composition of the framework of representation.

Though I am not a parent, I do not think we should be sending children into combat. Enlistment and training from 18 on, yes. Deployment to an active war zone should be 21 minimum, in my opinion.

 

[bilby]

Funny; the OP article suggests that driving should be left late - 18 or 21; and that voting should be allowed earlier - 16 or even younger. And yet many people here are suggesting the reverse.

Cold cognition tasks, such as voting, giving consent to medical procedures (including abortions), and standing trial as an adult are, supposedly, things a person can typically cope with at age 16.

Hot cognition tasks, such as drinking alcohol or taking other drugs, driving a vehicle, or serving in a combat role are, supposedly, better left until 21 or even later.

I suspect that some posters are simply reflexively defending the status quo, without really looking at the physiological implications.

Of course others have raised genuine practical issues - such as rural teens needing to be able to drive in order to work, or to avoid being socially isolated; I am not sure that these considerations outweigh the risk of letting insufficiently mature minds control a motor vehicle though; it may be hard to hold down a job when you live in a remote area and have no wheels, but it is even harder when you are dead.

Actually, in the US, one can serve in a combat role in the military at age 18. The reality is that there are no wars where children are not killed outright and through the disease and starvation that comes from war. But that isn't what we are discussing here.

I wonder a bit if I am not just being hide bound to the status quo when I say that I think the voting age at 18 is probably right or how much of it is based on the fact that I was one of the first to be able to vote at age 18 instead of 21. Or whether it is based upon what I recollect about my own teenaged years or raising my own children and what my observations are about social and brain development as well as political engagement. The truth is that I think that 16 year olds are more easily distracted and more easily influenced than are 18 year olds.Of course laws passed today will apply to the sixteen year olds who cannot vote yet. But also will apply to the 10 year olds, the 6 year olds, etc. I don't think most 16 year olds are ready to engage in the political system yet. Some are, sure. But not most.

I don't think we should be sending 18 year olds into combat. Actually, I'm a pacifist, albeit an imperfect one. I don't really think we should send anyone into combat but 18 is too young. 21 is a more reasonable age, developmental wise.

Morally, I have no problem with 16 year olds drinking but I know that 16 year olds who drink are more likely to have problems with alcohol abuse vs those who begin drinking at 21 or later. I also know that plenty of 16 year olds drink. I think that's a problem. I also think that making alcohol legal for 18 year olds will put more alcohol into the hands of 16 year olds, 14, year olds, 12 year olds and that's a bad thing.

I dunno; having been a 16 year old in a country where 18 year olds could buy alcohol, I can say from personal experience that it isn't very easy to get alcohol in that situation.

Most of the current ages have been arrived at by political, rather than rational, means - hence the large differences between different countries. In the UK, you used to be able to join up at 17.5 for a combat role in the army (I am not sure if this is still the case); with the necessary time for training, this ensures that soldiers are not sent into combat under the age of 18, but again this seems more a political decision than a rational one - an 18 year old soldier isn't given the option to say 'I have changed my mind', so effectively it is the 17.5 year old who makes the call about being sent to fight. I would like to see this raised to 21, but I suspect that armies would find it a LOT harder to recruit if it was. Whether that is good or bad is a political question; I am unconvinced that it is a bad thing myself, but many people find the idea of a smaller military very worrying.

Americans set the drinking age rather high in most states, compared to the ages in the developed world; but America has a very different culture around alcohol from that in the developed world, so it is hard to say which differences in outcomes are due to those cultural variations, and which are due to age limits.

Voting is, in theory, something younger people should be able to handle - there is plenty of time to think, research and consult before you cast your ballot, and assuming a secret ballot, there is little opportunity for effective peer pressure. Of course, young people tend to be radical rather than conservative, so lowering the voting age is generally seen as a bad plan by those in power, as there is nothing in it for them.

Given the huge bias in the road toll towards younger drivers, I would strongly support a push for the minimum driving age to be increased; of course that would be highly unpopular with young people, and in many situations the job market would need to be re-structured, or the expectation of employment would need to change - perhaps by keeping people in school to an older age, or by providing free tertiary education. In sparsely populated areas with poor public transport it would make life quite difficult for young adult/older teens; but they would at least still be alive.

- - - Updated - - -

Based on voter participation, I think that we need to engage more people in the collective decision making processes (government). Perhaps one way to do that would be to have graduated levels of participation starting at a younger age to vote for municipal government, maybe 17, regional or provincial at 19 and federal or national at 21. Our education systems should be instrumental in teaching the importance of participating in the democratic processes. Perhaps they are doing more now but when I went to school, very little was taught beyond a very basic look at the composition of the framework of representation.

Though I am not a parent, I do not think we should be sending children into combat. Enlistment and training from 18 on, yes. Deployment to an active war zone should be 21 minimum, in my opinion.

I agree that the age for active service needs to be higher; but if you allow earlier enlistment, you need an 'opt out' clause at 21, or you are simply letting the 18 year old make a decision on behalf of the 21 year old that the 21 year old may regret.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Funny; the OP article suggests that driving should be left late - 18 or 21; and that voting should be allowed earlier - 16 or even younger. And yet many people here are suggesting the reverse.

Cold cognition tasks, such as voting, giving consent to medical procedures (including abortions), and standing trial as an adult are, supposedly, things a person can typically cope with at age 16.

Hot cognition tasks, such as drinking alcohol or taking other drugs, driving a vehicle, or serving in a combat role are, supposedly, better left until 21 or even later.

I suspect that some posters are simply reflexively defending the status quo, without really looking at the physiological implications.

The reason I'm saying earlier on alcohol is that I'm saying to phase it in. I don't think there should be a drinking age, but rather a range. Not a illegal today/unlimited tomorrow but stepwise. Say, ordering one drink with a meal at age 16 but only if you are sober at the time. Purchasing bulk alcohol would be left to age 21.

Of course others have raised genuine practical issues - such as rural teens needing to be able to drive in order to work, or to avoid being socially isolated; I am not sure that these considerations outweigh the risk of letting insufficiently mature minds control a motor vehicle though; it may be hard to hold down a job when you live in a remote area and have no wheels, but it is even harder when you are dead.

Denying rural teens transportation isn't practical. I prefer a system of graduated licenses. Even urban teens are pretty severely limited if they're in an area without decent public transit. While driving at 21 would be safest it's not practical.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The younger driving age is a hold over from days when kids took on adult responsbilities at far younger ages than most (but not all) kids today. In plenty of states, you can legally drive younger than 14 if it is for farm business. The truth is that farms relied heavily on anyone big enough to do the labor. Driving requires less physical strength than pitching bales of hale onto the back of a wagon and is less dangerous than operating a lot of farm equipment.

And those farm kids are driving low performance vehicles on generally flat roads and to a large degree not on the roads at all. While it's mostly not enforced by license it's in effect a graduated system.