Age restrictions and the consent of minors

[you_with_the_face]

No, because clearly we know that 10% of 10 year olds are safe drivers. Banning all 10 year olds from the road is a cop-out; the fair solution is to work harder to separate the good ones from the bad ones.

That may be the fairest solution, but it is not the most practical or necessary one. So what that 10 year-olds can’t drive, really. Does the “injustice” of the status quo outweigh the risks that come with hyperactive 10 year olds sitting behind the wheels of SUVs? Also keep in mind that the more hoops you make 10 year olds jump through to prove their license-worthiness is more hoops for everyone else as well, if you’re goal of fairness is consistent.

What kind of test? A written test about the effects of alcohol, alcohol related laws (DUI, public intoxication, restrictions on selling), and perhaps a doctor’s opinion as to whether this person’s liver is developed enough.

These parameters only measure knowledge-based information. Any fool can tell you what the effects of alcohol are, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are fit to be drinking. One thing about immaturity is that it makes you do stupid things sometimes. Instead of doing the smart, rational thing (like knowing when to say when), it’ll lead you to make wrong, dumbass decisions (like getting drunk and then deciding to skydive off the roof like Evil Kinevil). Can you test for maturity with a paper-based test? I don’t see how.

In principle, everyone ought to be held to the same test. But I’d accept a compromise: keep the drinking age, and allow anyone younger to take the test.

Why would you be willing to make that compromise unless you felt it necessary to discriminate at least on some level between minors and adults? Furthermore, if by chance it was discovered that no test could be devised to reliably determine whether or not a minor was fit to drink, give legal consent, drive, etc…would you still insist upon no age-based restrictions? Or would you be willing to go with the tried and true?

Red tape is better than arbitrary discrimination.

Any workable alternative (which yours is not, I’m afraid) will entail “arbitrary discrimination”. In a perfect world, every characteristic would be capable of being measured down to the thousandth nanogram, but this ain’t no perfect world. So we guesstimate when an adequate level of maturity is expected to be present and let that be our guide. It’s unfortunate that in the process a lot of mature people get denied the opportunity to drive and all that, but such is life in a world that doesn’t exactly operate like a perfect one.

Or someone the same age, or younger than them. The same is true of many adults. I don’t see a problem here: coercion is still rape.

Not necessarily. Coercion can mean anything from the threat of violence to “I’m going to stop loving you if you don’t do this”. The matter is clearly rape, the other is questionable.

[you_with_the_face]

Last sentence should read: The former is clearly rape, the other is questionable."

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by you with the face
That may be the fairest solution, but it is not the most practical or necessary one. So what that 10 year-olds can’t drive, really. Does the “injustice” of the status quo outweigh the risks that come with hyperactive 10 year olds sitting behind the wheels of SUVs?

Yes, IMO, it does.

Also keep in mind that the more hoops you make 10 year olds jump through to prove their license-worthiness is more hoops for everyone else as well, if you’re goal of fairness is consistent.

Sounds good to me - better drivers of all ages. It’s ridiculously easy to get a license today, as others have mentioned.

Can you test for maturity with a paper-based test? I don’t see how.

Can you test for it at all? How can you know whether a person is ‘mature’ or not?

Why would you be willing to make that compromise unless you felt it necessary to discriminate at least on some level between minors and adults?

Necessary? No. Politically acceptable.

The core problem–capable minors were prevented from buying alcohol simply because of their age–has been solved. The compromise merely extends the right to buy alcohol to some people who may not be able to pass the test, but who have been expecting for the past 21 years to attain that right at age 21; it keeps them happy while solving the core problem.

Furthermore, if by chance it was discovered that no test could be devised to reliably determine whether or not a minor was fit to drink, give legal consent, drive, etc…would you still insist upon no age-based restrictions? Or would you be willing to go with the tried and true?

If no test can determine whether a minor is fit to drink (using drinking as an example), then there’s no way to tell whether anyone is fit to drink, right? We’d have no way to know how effective the “tried and true” really is, or even whether we should prohibit anyone from drinking at all.

Not necessarily. Coercion can mean anything from the threat of violence to “I’m going to stop loving you if you don’t do this”. The [former] is clearly rape, the other is questionable.

A threat like that casts doubt upon the third part of informed consent. Informed consent is freely given, without threats, duress, or other forms of coercion.

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
Have you found a reason yet?

No replies yet.

I did find out that New York State law prohibits age discrimination in the car rental business as long as insurance is available for the driver. The companies charge extra for younger drivers because insurance is more expensive for them, but they aren’t allowed to charge more than the actual difference of insurance cost. (Of course, insuring a rental car and insuring a personal car are very different.)

But do you force him? What if the little tyke suddenly realizes he bit off more than he can chew?

Sucks to be him, I guess. He shouldn’t have accepted the responsibility without being prepared to live up to it.

**Do we give him a free pass, because he’s a kid? **

Because of his age, you mean?

Hmm, do I think age discrimination is right in this one circumstance, and no others? Do I really want kids to have their cake and eat it too? Have you found out my shameful secret?

No. :rolleyes:

But all sorts of “obligations” are “forced” on adults, and they cope. It comes with the territory.

Which would those be?

Apart from jury duty and the draft, adults freely enter into obligations; they aren’t forced into them.

To have the parents watch their kids take on these “responsibilities”, which of course, they are not really taking on, because they are still being supported and have parents who are legally responsible for them?

If Junior gets pulled over on the highway, he has to pay the ticket, not his parents. If he doesn’t pay, he goes to jail, not his parents.

If Junior gets someone pregnant, he pays child support, not his parents. If he doesn’t, he goes to jail, not his parents.

Of course he’s “really taking on” the responsibilities. His parents only retain the responsibilities he has not yet accepted. They put a roof over his head and keep him from starving.

Just like I thought, once again—you want them to have their cake and eat it too.

And once more, you lead yourself to a conclusion, then pat yourself on the back for constructing such a nice strawman. It does kinda look like my argument… from a distance… if you squint. At night.

Good try, though. Maybe next time you’ll grasp it.

[Stonebow]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *

Of course he’s “really taking on” the responsibilities. His parents only retain the responsibilities he has not yet accepted. They put a roof over his head and keep him from starving.

**

I think the point that you are not getting is that, along with that duty to provide food and shelter, most courts have recognized an almost unlimited sovereign right on the part of parents to act on behalf of their child and do pretty much anything for and TO them short of extreme physical harm.

if junior applies and gets the right to drink at 12, what recourse do his parents have? since he has not accepted ‘all’ of his adult responsibilities, are they still obligated to keep him under their roof? especially if they have other, younger, children, i can see how they might want the one child out. while the one child might potentially ‘deal’ with the consequences of their actions (a claim that i still disagree with), what about the potential consequencs to other members of the household?

same thing with driving, sex, etc. a parent may decide that while their child has successfully petitioned for these rights, that they do not want to support the exercise of them in any way. juinor wants a drink? he’ll pay for it with his own money? the law backs him up? fine. let him use that same money to put a roof over his head, food on the table, and use what’s left for booze. you keep on saying that it does not have to be ‘all or none’…but in practice, i think that it works out that way.

parents can not legally abdicate their responsibilities (see the male abortion threads) because it has been decided that is not in the best interests of the child or society as a whole. would they be able to do so under your system? do you think that this benefits anyone?

i also disagree with your framing this debate in terms of ‘rights’…pretty much everything you’ve cited is a priveledge- except for maybe the sex issue- and then it’s more of a matter of restricting adult rights than those of children.

[you_with_the_face]

Mr2001:

Can you test for [maturity] at all? How can you know whether a person is ‘mature’ or not?

That’s my point. You can’t test for that. The presumed lack of maturity coupled with the lack of legal accountability is the basis for most age-restrictions, not the lack of information (e.g. not knowing the effects of alcohol, not knowing about STD’s). You balk at age-restrictions on the premise that not all minors are so woefully immature that they can’t handle driving, drinking, or consenting to sex. So if you take those restrictions away, won’t you have to devise a test to separate the mature kids from the immature ones? My question is how would go about doing that in a reasonable way?

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by Stonebow
I think the point that you are not getting is that, along with that duty to provide food and shelter, most courts have recognized an almost unlimited sovereign right on the part of parents to act on behalf of their child and do pretty much anything for and TO them short of extreme physical harm.

What does that have to do with whether the minor is ‘truly’ responsible for his own obligations?

if junior applies and gets the right to drink at 12, what recourse do his parents have? since he has not accepted ‘all’ of his adult responsibilities, are they still obligated to keep him under their roof? especially if they have other, younger, children, i can see how they might want the one child out.

“Recourse”? He hasn’t harmed them. If his parents think he should be on his own, they can petition for that, as we’ve discussed earlier in the thread. Filing the petition doesn’t mean he’ll automatically be kicked out, though.

same thing with driving, sex, etc. a parent may decide that while their child has successfully petitioned for these rights, that they do not want to support the exercise of them in any way.

Who says they have to? I would only remove the legal barriers.

There’s no law against kids going for a walk in the park, but that doesn’t mean if Junior wants to go for a walk instead of doing his homework, that his parents have to let him. As long as they’re responsible for him and have control over him, they can set conditions for his use of those rights, or disallow them entirely. That’s parenting.

let him use that same money to put a roof over his head, food on the table, and use what’s left for booze. you keep on saying that it does not have to be ‘all or none’…but in practice, i think that it works out that way.

I don’t follow. What’s the connection between the kid obtaining the right to drink and his parents kicking him out?

i also disagree with your framing this debate in terms of ‘rights’…pretty much everything you’ve cited is a priveledge- except for maybe the sex issue- and then it’s more of a matter of restricting adult rights than those of children.

Voting is a right in a country where the government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed.

I’ll concede that driving on public roads is a privilege. I happen to think of sex and drinking as rights (since they’re fundamental functions of the human body), but if you prefer to call them privileges, go for it. I’m not hung up on the word “rights”.

And BTW, the age of consent does affect minors as well as adults. See the Alameda County case I linked on the last page.

Originally posted by you with the face
That’s my point. You can’t test for that. The presumed lack of maturity coupled with the lack of legal accountability is the basis for most age-restrictions, not the lack of information (e.g. not knowing the effects of alcohol, not knowing about STD’s).

If we can’t test that presumed lack of maturity, how do we know it even exists? What basis is there to presume that minors are immature at all, if there’s no way to know whether any given person is mature or not?

You balk at age-restrictions on the premise that not all minors are so woefully immature that they can’t handle driving, drinking, or consenting to sex. So if you take those restrictions away, won’t you have to devise a test to separate the mature kids from the immature ones? My question is how would go about doing that in a reasonable way?

I would stick with more or less objective measurements: Does this person know the necessary facts about sex, drinking, driving, etc.? Is this person’s reaction time good enough to handle traffic? Does he know how to prevent pregnancy? Will his liver be damaged by moderate alcohol use? (Not all on the same test, obviously.)

Any qualities that can’t be tested are unknowable, and may as well not exist at all.

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
What does that have to do with whether the minor is ‘truly’ responsible for his own obligations?

It doesn’t, if a minor is “truly” responsible—meaning, they are out on their own, and don’t have parents or guardians who are financially supporting them and who are still legally responsible for them.

“Recourse”? He hasn’t harmed them. If his parents think he should be on his own, they can petition for that, as we’ve discussed earlier in the thread. Filing the petition doesn’t mean he’ll automatically be kicked out, though.

And if you have your way, the kid probably won’t. Because it would be too unreasonable to expect the little tyke to work to support himself and go to school fulltime (even though it could be done through night school, or GED, etc.). So the parents can’t force a kid to take on such a responsibility. So the parents can’t force the kid to work and go to an “alternative” school. So, if your standards were applied, very few kids would be deemed ready to be out on their own, which would still make their parents legally and financially responsible for them. EVEN THOUGH the parents strongly object to the “rights” the kid has petitioned for, against the parents wishes and wisdom. So, yeah, the kid is having his cake and eating it too. He’s got parents to support him, legally responsible for him, but he gets a “right” that they think is either morally wrong or very unwise. Why force parents to be put into such a situation?

Who says they have to? I would only remove the legal barriers.

But earlier you were bleating about how terrible it was that Junior couldn’t go out to that club and see that band play. But if their parents forbid them to go out, they can’t go out. Some willful kids will go out anyway, (sneaking out the window) and if you got your way, they’d be legally able to go to that club, against the vehement objections of their parents. The parents would not have the law to back them up, and would not be able to expect the club to prevent their kid from going to the club. They’d have no back-up at all. Giving the willful kid more “amunition” to do what they want, no matter what mom and dad say.

Some kids are very willful, and can be big discipline problems. Some parents apply “tough love” to such children. But without the law to help back them up…their parenting experience will be frustrating indeed. They might even want to get the kid out of the house, but wait! Can’t do that if the kid can’t handle school and work at the same time!

It’s screwed up. And yes, once again, you do want the kid to have their cake and eat it too.

[you_with_the_face]

Mr2001:

[quote]
If we can’t test that presumed lack of maturity, how do we know it even exists?

[quote]

Can we test for love? If not, how do we know it exists?
Can we test for beauty? If not, how do we know it exists?
Not every trait of importance is testable.

What basis is there to presume that minors are immature at all, if there’s no way to know whether any given person is mature or not?

It’s not a presumption that minors generally are more immature than adults. It’s an observation that was probably made by the very first generation of humans. Call it a theory, call it a hunch, but I call it the closest thing to a fact that we’ve got going. And it’s okay because you know what? Kids are supposed to be immature. That’s what makes them kids. They are physically immature; why is it hard for you to accept that emotionally they are less mature than their elders? Kids are not supposed to be miniature adults. We shouldn’t treat them like adults. We shouldn’t hold them accountability for their screw ups like we do adults. And we shouldn’t entitle them to the same priviledges that we do adults.

Back in the day when I was a kid and dinner was served, the tacit understanding at the table was that the white meat was reserved for the adults. Us kids did not expect to get handed the breast meat; that was for the grown-ups. When we watched TV, our parents controlled the remote; if the kids didn’t like what was on, they could go outside and play or go upstairs and read a book. When we rode in the car, daddy drove and mommy sat shotgun; there was no question that the kids would sit in the back. Why, you may be wondering, did we not gnash our teeth at the injustice of being treated like this?

It was because we understood that these things were priviledges for adults, and that one day we would get these priviledges, when we grew up and had control over our own lives.

I’m of the opinion that maturity level can only be assessed over a significant period of time and by someone well-acquainted with the individual, but not with a fill-in-the-blank examination and an hour long session with a psychologist. A thirty year-old very well may have the emotional maturity of a sixth grader, but at least when such a person finds a way to abuse their priviledges they can be held fully accountable.

[you_with_the_face]

Mr2001:

If we can’t test that presumed lack of maturity, how do we know it even exists?

Can we test for love? If not, how do we know it exists?
Can we test for beauty? If not, how do we know it exists?
Not every trait of importance is testable.

What basis is there to presume that minors are immature at all, if there’s no way to know whether any given person is mature or not?

It’s not a presumption that minors generally are more immature than adults. It’s an observation that was probably made by the very first generation of humans. Call it a theory, call it a hunch, but I call it the closest thing to a fact that we’ve got going. And it’s okay because you know what? Kids are supposed to be immature. That’s what makes them kids. They are physically immature; why is it hard for you to accept that emotionally they are less mature than their elders? Kids are not supposed to be miniature adults. We shouldn’t treat them like adults. We shouldn’t hold them accountability for their screw ups like we do adults. And we shouldn’t entitle them to the same priviledges that we do adults.

Back in the day when I was a kid and dinner was served, the tacit understanding at the table was that the white meat was reserved for the adults. Us kids did not expect to get handed the breast meat; that was for the grown-ups. When we watched TV, our parents controlled the remote; if the kids didn’t like what was on, they could go outside and play or go upstairs and read a book. When we rode in the car, daddy drove and mommy sat shotgun; there was no question that the kids would sit in the back. Why, you may be wondering, did we not gnash our teeth at the injustice of being treated like this?

It was because we understood that these things were priviledges for adults, and that one day we would get these priviledges, when we grew up and had control over our own lives.

I’m of the opinion that maturity level can only be assessed over a significant period of time, by someone well-acquainted with the individual, not with a fill-in-the-blank examination and an hour long session with a psychologist. A thirty year-old very well may have the emotional maturity of a sixth grader, but at least when such a person finds a way to abuse their priviledges they can be held fully accountable.

I would stick with more or less objective measurements: Does this person know the necessary facts about sex, drinking, driving, etc.? Is this person’s reaction time good enough to handle traffic? Does he know how to prevent pregnancy? Will his liver be damaged by moderate alcohol use? (Not all on the same test, obviously.)

The problem with this approach is that you’re testing everything except the very trait that current age-restrictions are in place for. Knowing the facts about sex is all well and good, but I don’t see how understanding anatomy and vocabulary words relates to the potential for being taken advantage of by a power-welding adult. The same goes for drinking and driving. A ten year-old may have excellent reaction time, but will that predict how well they react to a mack truck barreling down the highway only inches away smashing their car to bits?

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
And if you have your way, the kid probably won’t. Because it would be too unreasonable to expect the little tyke to work to support himself and go to school fulltime (even though it could be done through night school, or GED, etc.).

So wait until he’s done with school. Parents do that all the time.

** So, yeah, the kid is having his cake and eating it too. He’s got parents to support him, legally responsible for him, but he gets a “right” that they think is either morally wrong or very unwise. Why force parents to be put into such a situation?**

Oh, come on. He already has rights that parents may think are wrong or unwise. There’s no law preventing him from entering public parks, buying comic books, or hanging around with delinquents. If the parents don’t want him doing those things, they don’t need a law to “back them up”.

But earlier you were bleating about how terrible it was that Junior couldn’t go out to that club and see that band play.

Yes. Because state law prevents minors from entering places where alcohol is served. Even if Junior has his parents’ blessing, he still can’t go in.

But if their parents forbid them to go out, they can’t go out. Some willful kids will go out anyway, (sneaking out the window) and if you got your way, they’d be legally able to go to that club, against the vehement objections of their parents. The parents would not have the law to back them up, and would not be able to expect the club to prevent their kid from going to the club.

Now this is weak.

He’s already legally able to go to youth clubs, the mall, or the baseball field, or to watch violent TV shows, or eat candy until he pukes. That doesn’t mean his parents have to allow it.

Seriously, what kind of inept parents need a law to keep their kids from doing those things?

What’s next… a law banning 7-Eleven clerks from selling candy to minors without a parent present?

It’s screwed up. And yes, once again, you do want the kid to have their cake and eat it too.

Just like you want to make it illegal to sell candy.

Originally posted by you with the face
Can we test for love? If not, how do we know it exists?
Can we test for beauty? If not, how do we know it exists?
Not every trait of importance is testable.

Love, as an internal emotion, is best judged by the person who claims to be in love.

Beauty can be judged subjectively, but we also know some objective things about beauty: symmetrical faces are considered more attractive, faces and bodies with certain proportions between the parts are more attractive, and so on. However, as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder; the statement “Jane is beautiful” says more about the person saying it than it does about Jane.

Maturity, presumably, is an inherent quality of a person. Junior is either mature or not mature, or somewhere in between, no matter who judges him.

And here, we aren’t really talking about ‘maturity’ as a whole, but rather subsets of maturity for each right. Would you agree that someone ‘mature’ enough to handle alcohol is not necessarily ‘mature’ enough to drive or vote?

It’s not a presumption that minors generally are more immature than adults. It’s an observation that was probably made by the very first generation of humans. Call it a theory, call it a hunch, but I call it the closest thing to a fact that we’ve got going.

OK… so whose observation should influence the law?

If Senator Smith’s experience with young people leads him to believe that no one is mature enough to vote until age 25, is that a legitimate basis to deny the vote to everyone under 25? Or does he need more evidence than his own personal beliefs?

They are physically immature; why is it hard for you to accept that emotionally they are less mature than their elders?

It isn’t at all. In fact, my proposal implies that everyone starts out ‘immature’.

However, I do not believe:

• We can tell how mature a teenager is by his age.
• All young people mature at the same rate.
• All young people become ready to handle the same rights and responsibilities in the same order.

The problem with this approach is that you’re testing everything except the very trait that current age-restrictions are in place for.

If that trait cannot be tested, the only legitimate alternative is to test the others that can be.

Knowing the facts about sex is all well and good, but I don’t see how understanding anatomy and vocabulary words relates to the potential for being taken advantage of by a power-welding adult.

Isn’t that rape?

** A ten year-old may have excellent reaction time, but will that predict how well they react to a mack truck barreling down the highway only inches away smashing their car to bits?**

What does that have to do with ‘maturity’, and why is it any more applicable to kids than adults?

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
So wait until he’s done with school. Parents do that all the time.

Well, the kid can do the GED thing, and finish school while working. Kids do it all the time. But no! We can’t have that! We can’t have parents forcing such a thing on their kids! Even though some kids do it all the time.

However, if you had things your way, the parents would have to stand by and watch their kids petition for a number of things that might horrify the parents. And what can they do to stop the kid from getting these rights? Oh yeah. Nothing.

Oh, come on. He already has rights that parents may think are wrong or unwise. There’s no law preventing him from entering public parks, buying comic books, or hanging around with delinquents. If the parents don’t want him doing those things, they don’t need a law to “back them up”.

Oh. I see. Because every parent has complete control over their kids. No kids are discipline problems. No parent ever characterizes their kid as “out of control”. Nope. Never happens.

He’s already legally able to go to youth clubs, the mall, or the baseball field, or to watch violent TV shows, or eat candy until he pukes. That doesn’t mean his parents have to allow it.

Yes, and everyone is legally able to do these things—because they are deemed relatively benign by most of society. (Except for the puking part. ) Going to the park is different than drinking or having sex at age 13. The latter have more potential financial consequences, more risks, more dangers.

Seriously, what kind of inept parents need a law to keep their kids from doing those things?

Many times, the law is the last resort for parents who are dismayed by their kid’s out-of-control behavior. If the kid won’t mind them (the parents) at least they know they can legally require the club to not let the kid in (and report the club to the police if it does). Or, let the kid stew in his or her own juice when they get picked up by the police. Hell, the parents may call the police. Part of “tough love”.

But what you propose will not give the parents “veto power” on what the kid petitions for, and won’t give the parents the clout of the law. Oh, and they’ll still have to stand by and support the kid while the kid petitions for “rights” the parent doesn’t want them to have. A well-mannered kid won’t be a problem, but unlike in your deluded fantasy world, not all kids are respectful or well-mannered.

What’s next… a law banning 7-Eleven clerks from selling candy to minors without a parent present?

Candy ain’t the same is booze, and you know it. How many people get arrested for driving while under the influence of candy? How many people do some seriously stupid or damaging things while under the influence of candy?

[you_with_the_face]

And here, we aren’t really talking about ‘maturity’ as a whole, but rather subsets of maturity for each right. Would you agree that someone ‘mature’ enough to handle alcohol is not necessarily ‘mature’ enough to drive or vote?

Someone may very well be mature enough to vote but not drink. I find the idea of devising tests for each of these priviledges/rights more than a bit cumbersome and impractical, though.

OK… so whose observation should influence the law?

Well, the law on this is already written and I don’t know who penned it. I have a feeling that it wasn’t just one dude’s decision, though.

However, I do not believe:

• We can tell how mature a teenager is by his age.
• All young people mature at the same rate.
• All young people become ready to handle the same rights and responsibilities in the same order.

I agree with all of these points, but I find them moot. The issue is about maturity, as I see it, or the lack thereof. Teenagers tend to be irresponsible with a lot of things, including driving and drinking and screwing. This is a generalization, admittedly, and doesn’t pertain to individuals. However, the statement holds water when applied to the teenage population as a whole.

This in and of itself doesn’t justify age-based restrictions. Their lack of accountability coupled with their relative immaturity does. Your solution to this lack of accountability represents the corner I believe you’ve painted yourself in. As long as the child remains at least partially under the care of someone else, he doesn’t have full accountability. That keeps him from being treated like an adult when his priviledges have been misused.

One right we haven’t mentioned is the right to bear arms. Should kids be allowed legal access to firearms?

If that trait cannot be tested, the only legitimate alternative is to test the others that can be.

Ummm, no it is not. Testing for irrelevant things just for the sake of testing is more arbitrary than having restrictions based on age.

What does that have to do with ‘maturity’, and why is it any more applicable to kids than adults?

Keeping one’s head in stressful, frightening situations is a sign of maturity. Most adults have learned how to control their emotions and impulses; a good many children have yet to master that.

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
However, if you had things your way, the parents would have to stand by and watch their kids petition for a number of things that might horrify the parents. And what can they do to stop the kid from getting these rights? Oh yeah. Nothing.

That’s right, nothing. The parents can’t interfere with their kids gaining legal rights when they’re ready.

Oh. I see. Because every parent has complete control over their kids. No kids are discipline problems. No parent ever characterizes their kid as “out of control”. Nope. Never happens.

Thanks for sharing this insightful gem. You’ve done a superb job of explaining why it’s necessary to outlaw everything parents might not want their kids to do. I, for one, am completely convinced, and I am not making this up.

Many times, the law is the last resort for parents who are dismayed by their kid’s out-of-control behavior. If the kid won’t mind them (the parents) at least they know they can legally require the club to not let the kid in (and report the club to the police if it does).

Oh, but what if the parents don’t want their kid going to any club? Or to the mall, or the park, or hanging out with those nogoodniks across the street? Who are they gonna call?

The police are not parents. Expecting cops to enforce house rules is the sign of a lazy, inept parent.

But what you propose will not give the parents “veto power” on what the kid petitions for, and won’t give the parents the clout of the law.

No, it sure won’t. It also won’t give them veto power over their kids’ choice of electives at school, or what they eat at lunch, or who they call on the phone. Parents don’t need the law to “back them up” on any of these issues.

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
Candy ain’t the same is booze, and you know it. How many people get arrested for driving while under the influence of candy? How many people do some seriously stupid or damaging things while under the influence of candy?

Indeed. That’s why there would be a petition and a test for the right to drink, and not for the right to eat candy.

We don’t need to keep it illegal just so that parents won’t have to keep an eye on what their kids are doing.

Originally posted by you with the face
Someone may very well be mature enough to vote but not drink. I find the idea of devising tests for each of these priviledges/rights more than a bit cumbersome and impractical, though.

Why is ‘cumbersome’ a good justification for denying rights to a significant chunk of the population?

Well, the law on this is already written and I don’t know who penned it. I have a feeling that it wasn’t just one dude’s decision, though.

If it’s such common knowledge that minors are too ‘immature’ for these rights, surely there must be some evidence to back it up, not just a group of legislators saying “Yeah, those kids just aren’t mature enough for this.” “Got that right.”

** Your solution to this lack of accountability represents the corner I believe you’ve painted yourself in. As long as the child remains at least partially under the care of someone else, he doesn’t have full accountability. That keeps him from being treated like an adult when his priviledges have been misused.**

I ask again, how is he not fully accountable, simply because his parents have a few obligations to him? He may not have to worry about not having a place to live if he gets in over his head, but he still has to pay his debts, and can still go to jail if he fails to live up to his own obligations.

One right we haven’t mentioned is the right to bear arms. Should kids be allowed legal access to firearms?

If they can safely handle a gun, yes. (Frankly, I don’t think anyone who can’t safely handle a gun should be able to own one, but that’s another thread.)

Ummm, no it is not. Testing for irrelevant things just for the sake of testing is more arbitrary than having restrictions based on age.

You’re saying the objective facts regarding sex (or drinking, etc.) are more irrelevant than age?

Keeping one’s head in stressful, frightening situations is a sign of maturity. Most adults have learned how to control their emotions and impulses; a good many children have yet to master that.

That can be measured. Pilots train for stressful situations in a flight simulator; why can’t drivers do the same?

[yosemite]

you with the face wrote:
Your solution to this lack of accountability represents the corner I believe you’ve painted yourself in. As long as the child remains at least partially under the care of someone else, he doesn’t have full accountability. That keeps him from being treated like an adult when his priviledges have been misused.

Mr2001 wote:

I ask again, how is he not fully accountable, simply because his parents have a few obligations to him? He may not have to worry about not having a place to live if he gets in over his head, but he still has to pay his debts, and can still go to jail if he fails to live up to his own obligations.

“A few” obligations? Ask any parent if they feel they have just a “few” obligations to their kids. Methinks that you minimize the pretty formidable responsiblity that parenthood is.

I agree with ywtf: this is where you have really painted yourself into a corner. You want a kid to be, well, a kid, with parents who are still looking after them. But then you want to let the kid go out on their own, against the parents’ wishes in some cases, and take on “adult” rights, while they are still living the life of a kid. La-de-da, life would be so great for a kid who can have their cake and eat it too! Mom and dad will foot the bill, while they play “grown up”!

You diminish the parents’ responsibilites to “a few”, which to me shows a certain amount of deluded cluelessness on your part. Your equally deluded, “Well, I expect them to be ‘responsible’” is another way you’ve painted yourself into a corner. When asked how a kid (whose never worked before, and who you concede probably couldn’t handled full time work and school) could be ‘responsible’, the best suggestion you can come up with is—guess what? Full time work and school! You obviously have no clue how such a scheme would work successfully, so you are forced to regurgitate a solution that you had previously protested against.

This all makes the rest of us believe that a high percentage of the kids who opted for “responsibilty” would fail. Because you’ve given no real convincing scenario to convince us they would not fail. So, they’d end up getting mom and dad bailing them out, or the taxpayers.

[Philly_Style]

:smack: :smack:

She was boozed and drugged up. Diminished Capacity makes it rape. The fact that a 13 year old can’t sign a contract, drive a car, marry (execpt in Al.), is to protect minors from their own lack of life experience.

[you_with_the_face]

Why is ‘cumbersome’ a good justification for denying rights to a significant chunk of the population?

Because cumbersome things are paid out of taxpayers dollars and add more stacks of red tape to the beaurecrat’s desktop. There are a lot of things in society that are sacrificed for practical reasons. For example, there would be a lot less unsolved criminal cases if every precinct and forensics team operated like Law and Order and CSI. But, alas, there’s not enough money for that in the real world. So we sacrifice expediency for practicality.

One could also argue (with good reason) that the risks of harm to children and the rest of society probably outweigh any benefits that your idea may potential provide. Currently, any adult shown to be having sexual relations with a child is guilty of a crime, thus alleviating a victimized child the traumatic task of proving that “she/he was asking for it.” That’s how the game is played with adults, and I don’t think kids should have to go through all that. Under your regime, kids will not be entitled to special considerations and will be expected to act like adults even if they fail the “competency” test you envision. And God forbid the kid passed the competency test but was victimized by someone who said they had good reason to believe the youth was competent. Then it boils down to “he said/she said”. Do we really want to deal with that grief?

If it’s such common knowledge that minors are too ‘immature’ for these rights, surely there must be some evidence to back it up, not just a group of legislators saying “Yeah, those kids just aren’t mature enough for this.” “Got that right.”

I don’t think its mere coincidence that the legal age of adulthood coincides when most teens graduate from high school and are armed with the minimum tools to take care of themselves. Do you?

I ask again, how is he not fully accountable, simply because his parents have a few obligations to him? He may not have to worry about not having a place to live if he gets in over his head, ** but he still has to pay his debts, and can still go to jail if he fails to live up to his own obligations.**

How does a 12 year old manage to pay a $10, 000 fine? What kind of job could they get that will allow them to accomplish that feat? Really, I want to know so that I can get one of those jobs. And do you think it’s a good idea to put 10, 12, and 14 year olds in adult prison? After all, in your world, the dilenation between minors and adults is imaginary, and therefore kids and adults should be treated the same, just like women and blacks, right?

If they can safely handle a gun, yes. (Frankly, I don’t think anyone who can’t safely handle a gun should be able to own one, but that’s another thread.)

So if Jimmy Jr. (who is 9 years old) leaves his assault rifle out in the open (like little boys are wont to do with their toys…yes it’s a generalization…sue me) where his little sister finds it, and she accidently puts a bullet in her brain, what will Jimmy Jr. be charged with? If there is any question that his sister was slain deliberately by Jimmy Jr., will he be charged with murder? Will his parents be completely free from culpability, even though A) they were aware that Jimmy leaves his “toys” out all the time, B) they know Jimmy likes to keep his “toys” loaded at all times, and C) they knew the little sister did not know how to handle guns safely?

You’re saying the objective facts regarding sex (or drinking, etc.) are more irrelevant than age?

I’m saying that making someone regurgitate a whole bunch of facts that they could pick up reading the “Alcohol and You” chapter of a seventh grade health textbook does not adequately measure how well someone can handle drinking. Just because something is objective doesn’t mean it is predictive, and that’s the only reason why testing should be done. Testing to see how fast physicians can multiply four-digit numbers in their head will get you an objective measurement of something, but that something will not have anything to do with how well a doctor conducts himself in the hospital.

That can be measured. Pilots train for stressful situations in a flight simulator; why can’t drivers do the same?

You’re willing to bankrupt the DMV just so that kids can drive?

[Stonebow]

Mr2001-
just so you know, my 9 year old knows what sex is, how babies are made, he knows that you can catch diseases from sex, etc.

your implication that he should be able to consent because he knows the mechanics of the situation trouble me.

I also think that’s where we’re not understanding each other- you are arguing a lot of abstracts and hypotheticals, while most of the rest of us are asking a lot of the ‘boring’ questions that your philosophy does not cover, usually involving real live children.

i am not satisfied that children are ‘expected’ to do things or ‘be responsible’ for things that it seems clear to me that they are incapable of. arguing that 1 out of every thousand is capable is not a valid reason to change the current rule of law, when the ‘rights’ being withheld are, in most cases not rights at all, and restrictions are lifted with time in any case.

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by yosemitebabe
When asked how a kid (whose never worked before, and who you concede probably couldn’t handled full time work and school) could be ‘responsible’, the best suggestion you can come up with is—guess what? Full time work and school! You obviously have no clue how such a scheme would work successfully, so you are forced to regurgitate a solution that you had previously protested against.

Where exactly did I “protest” against kids being expected to work (and attend school) as a result of their own responsibilities?

Can you find a single post in which I said anything like that?

If I wanted to see strawmen, I’d rent The Wizard of Oz.

Originally posted by you with the face
Because cumbersome things are paid out of taxpayers dollars and add more stacks of red tape to the beaurecrat’s desktop.

Some of those taxpayers are minors. Perhaps all tax revenue from minors should be diverted to these programs.

Under your regime, kids will not be entitled to special considerations and will be expected to act like adults even if they fail the “competency” test you envision.

I’m not sure what you mean by this.

And God forbid the kid passed the competency test but was victimized by someone who said they had good reason to believe the youth was competent. Then it boils down to “he said/she said”. Do we really want to deal with that grief?

I think you meant “failed”, not “passed”. What’s the problem with having real rape trials for capable minors?

I don’t think its mere coincidence that the legal age of adulthood coincides when most teens graduate from high school and are armed with the minimum tools to take care of themselves. Do you?

The age of adulthood has been 18 for longer than education has lasted until 18. A hundred years ago, many children didn’t go to school past age 12. It may not be a coincidence, but 18 as the age of adulthood has nothing to do with education.

How does a 12 year old manage to pay a $10, 000 fine? What kind of job could they get that will allow them to accomplish that feat? Really, I want to know so that I can get one of those jobs.

Hey, me too. I don’t have ten grand to throw around, but I’d be expected to pay the fine anyway, simply because of my age.

And do you think it’s a good idea to put 10, 12, and 14 year olds in adult prison? After all, in your world, the dilenation between minors and adults is imaginary, and therefore kids and adults should be treated the same, just like women and blacks, right?

I think the juvenile vs. adult justice systems were discussed earlier. Minors would only be subject to the adult justice system after reaching some milestone number of rights.

So if Jimmy Jr. (who is 9 years old) leaves his assault rifle out in the open (like little boys are wont to do with their toys…yes it’s a generalization…sue me) where his little sister finds it, and she accidently puts a bullet in her brain, what will Jimmy Jr. be charged with?

The same thing any adult would be charged with in the same situation.

If there is any question that his sister was slain deliberately by Jimmy Jr., will he be charged with murder?

Absolutely.

Will his parents be completely free from culpability, even though A) they were aware that Jimmy leaves his “toys” out all the time, B) they know Jimmy likes to keep his “toys” loaded at all times, and C) they knew the little sister did not know how to handle guns safely?

I’m not familiar with cases like this, so I don’t know quite how culpability is usually assigned. But, again, I would treat it the same as if an adult had left a gun in the open: the parents are somewhat responsible for keeping their daughter out of trouble, but Jimmy is ultimately responsible for keeping his gun secure.

Jimmy’s parents are not responsible for keeping his gun secure any more than for keeping a stranger’s gun secure.

You’re willing to bankrupt the DMV just so that kids can drive?

Let minors pay for it with their tax dollars.

Originally posted by Stonebow
**just so you know, my 9 year old knows what sex is, how babies are made, he knows that you can catch diseases from sex, etc.

your implication that he should be able to consent because he knows the mechanics of the situation trouble me.**

So how will you know when he’s ready to consent?

** arguing that 1 out of every thousand is capable is not a valid reason to change the current rule of law, when the ‘rights’ being withheld are, in most cases not rights at all, and restrictions are lifted with time in any case.**

Hmm. So I guess it’s OK if women don’t get to vote until age 30, right? After all, it’s not really hurting anyone, since the restriction is lifted with time.