Age restrictions and the consent of minors

Great Debates
141

See, in NY, “mentally incapacitated” only refers to someone temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling his or her conduct due to the influence of a narcotic or intoxicating substance administered to him/her without consent or any other act committed on him/ her without consent. In NY, an adult who voluntarily gets drunk can consent until he/she reaches the point of “physically helpless”, which means unconciousness or the inability to communicate.

Well, we don’t exactly assume that everyone over 16 has the necessary skills and judgement to drive. First, of all, for those between the minimum licensing age and 18, parental consent is needed to obtain a license. Amazingly enough, parents are generally in the best position to determine whether their minor child in that age range is mature enough to drive. Those over 18 aren’t really assumed to have the maturity or judgement either- but we’re willing to hold them responsible whether they have it or not. Although fairly young teenagers can be tried as adults for certain crimes- in NY 13 for murder and 14 for first degree assault , first and second degree arson, first degree kidnapping, first degree rape, aggravated sexual abuse, first degree manslaughter, first and second degree burglary and first and second degree robbery. Besides being serious crimes, they all require intent. A person under 16 is not criminally liable in NY for his or her reckless or negligent act. A person over 16 is. So if a person over sixteen is too immature or or lacks the judgement to realize that going through a stop sign at 60 mph is dangerous and likely to cause death. and does cause a death, he or she can be charged with vehicular manslaughter or manslaughter in the second degree. A thirteen year old who kills a pedestrian while riding his bicycle recklessly or negligently is not held criminally responsible. Not until the age of 16 are we willing to hold someone responsible for disregarding a risk or failing to perceive a risk. And for that matter, a child under 7 in NY has essentially no legal responsibility for his or her actions in NY- a child must be at least 7 for a delinquency case to occur in Family Court.

Well, sure, an appropriate method could be designed- but it wouldn’t be a test, it would take longer than 15 minutes, it would be a lot more expensive - in fact so expensive that the theoretical 10 year olds wouldn’t be able to afford it. And if the false/positive negative ratio need only be no higher than what we have today, you’re proposing a more expensive way to get the same results. As you are with the idea of no age of consent to sex- the results will look very much the same as they are today- sure there will be a few differences in the 14-16 year old age group (very few, considering how few of those are actually pure statutory cases* and how rare it is for charges to be brought in such a case.**) But younger kids- 2 month olds, two year olds, ten year olds, even 12 year olds- you’ll get the same results you do now , after a somewhat lengthier and more expensive trial.

  • for the most part, people I’ve seen convicted of statutory rape charges where the younger party was 14-16 either started out as forcible rape charges and were plea bargained down to a charge that involved the teen’s incapacity to consent or involved an adult in a postition of authority over the teen. I’ve only seen one with no allegations of force and no position of authority, and that conviction occurred over 30 years ago.

** Think about. How many people do you know who had sex before they reached the age of consent. A lot right? How many of their partners were arrested?

142

Sounds like semantics to me. If we deny the privilege of driving to young people on the grounds that they lack the necessary ‘maturity’, but we allow older people to drive, the clear implication is that we think the older people have the ‘maturity’ needed to safely handle a car.

As he should be. I would extend that to any drivers under 16 - by accepting a driver’s license, you accept responsibility for any damage or injury you cause while driving.

That doesn’t seem like a bad thing, if true. Our requirements for driving are incredibly lax compared to most other countries… in Germany, it takes over $1000 and dozens of hours of experience before you can get a license. The result is better drivers with a greater respect for the privilege of driving.

No… the redesigned test might still pass the same percentage of unsafe applicants and fail the same percentage of safe applicants.

The difference, however, is that the current test, which only applicants over 16 are allowed to take, “fails” 100% of safe applicants under the age of 16 by default. The redesigned test would not. Anyone who can safely drive a car would be legally allowed to; the end of arbitrary discrimination is desirable in itself.

Their partners are still criminals under our current laws, though. Sure, discretion and privacy mean that most of them are never brought to trial, but discretion is only as good as your relationship with the authorities, and privacy is only as good as your relationship with the neighbors.

I’d expect that the first few such trials would set precedents and develop tests that would make the following trials much simpler.

How many were afraid to have sex at all because of the laws? How many only stayed out of jail because they went to extreme lengths to hide what they were doing? How many would have been arrested if their partners had different parents, or convicted if their town had a different prosecutor?

143

Nice to see you don’t have a problem with sending the theoretical five year old to prison for up to 15 years for acting like a five year old. I do. And by the way, if children are to be treated exactly as adults are, that would apply to five year olds who cause a death due to recklessness even if they didn’t apply for a drivers license. The five year old gets the same treatment for killing his friend with the gun he thought was unloaded as the 35 year old does.

How? If the incapacity to consent has to be proven on an individual basis, what precedent would be set? It doesn’t matter if 100 five year olds have beem proven incapable before.If it does matter, then a de facto age of consent has been set.And by the way, the presumption that a six month old can provide informed consent will be inaccurate in far more cases than the presumption that a twelve year old can’t. The requirement that a prosecutor prove that a particular six month old can’t consent is a presumption that six month olds can consent, just like the requirement that a prosecutor prove that an particular adult can’t consent is a presumption that adults can consent.

My point wasn’t just that few adults are arrested for having sex with 14-16 year olds. My point was that given the the small numbers of people arrested for having sex with 14-16 year olds, and given that many of those convicted on statutory rape charges were in fact initially accused of forcible rape and given that some of the the others were people in positions of authority over the minor, the number of pure statutory cases not involving a position of authority is vanishingly small. Those are the only cases that would have a different result. Rather than simply advocating that their incapacity be proven, or lowering the age of consent , which would have the same effect, you would rather leave open the possibility that a prosecutor may fail to convince one person on a jury that a six month old can’t consent.(and there are indeed people out there who believe a six month old can consent, and even be “seductive”). Because as a matter of principle, children should be treated as adults except when it comes to such things as parental support, which the child is entitled to if he wants it.

And if an adult won’t have sex with a child because of the law, how does that violate the child’s rights any more than the adult not having sex with the child for fear of social disapproval? And what extreme lengths are you talking about? I meant to bring this up before, when you spoke of parents threatening to call the police because their child was spending too much time with the adult, but there are only a few ways to prove that an adult had sex with a minor. Either someone saw it , the minor testifies to it , someone gets pregnant or there’s a guilty plea (and an admission alone won’t do it). What’s so extreme about having sex outside of public view, preventing pregnancy and keeping your mouths shut?

144

I doubt that such a situation would ever come up, though, because frankly I don’t think a five year old can safely drive a car by any reasonable measure. I’d be suspicious of any test that gave him a passing grade.

But if this theoretical kid applies for a driver’s license and passes a reasonable test, then 1) he shouldn’t be significantly more of a risk than any other new driver, and 2) he knew exactly what he’d be liable for before he signed up.

And since when does “acting like a five year old” involve killing people?

Quite a big “if” there. I have never suggested holding everyone equally responsible–only eliminating age-based restrictions. A five year old who has never applied for any adult rights would have none of the adult responsibilities.

Well, I suppose medical evidence could show that no children younger than X are capable of understanding concept Y or performing task Z, but I was thinking more along the lines of a standard preliminary test.

When you get a vision test as part of a physical, they don’t need to look at your eye with a microscope; they just ask you to read a line of text of a certain size. When you’re pulled over for suspected DUI, before they pull out the breathalyzer, they ask you to do simple tasks like touch your fingers in front of your face with your eyes closed, walk a straight line, or recite the alphabet backwards.

Of course, inability to recite the alphabet backwards doesn’t mean a person is drunk, and someone who can recite it backwards might still be drunk. But there’s a good enough correlation, most of the time, that the simple test can be used to tell whether more complex tests are needed.

Similar tests could be used to expedite a lot of the cases you’re referring to, once the ‘maturity’ being tested is clearly identified and correlations are found. For example, if a minor can identify the names of common STDs out of a list, and can explain where babies come from, the prosecutor might decide that further tests would be a waste of time for that particular case, since they’re likely to show that the minor’s consent was indeed informed. In a different case, he might want a more thorough test to be absolutely sure.

I don’t think it’d be hard to find medical evidence that 6 month olds, who can’t walk or talk, can’t understand the consequences of sex either.

Changing the law would still have a positive effect for the cases that don’t make it to trial: they wouldn’t have to be secretive about their actions, they wouldn’t have to fear being discovered, and no one could use their actions as a blackmail or bargaining tool.

Please. Care to point out the post where I said anything like that?

You might ask the same thing about drug laws, or sodomy laws - what’s wrong with criminalizing something if it’s easy to avoid being caught? Yet people are still convicted all the time under drug laws, and even under sodomy laws.

In a recent case that made it to the Supreme Court, the police entered a home to investigate a (false) report made by a neighbor, and discovered two men having sex. The two men were out of public view, kept their mouths shut, and obviously neither of them got pregnant. They thought they were safe.

A nosy neighbor who sees a man entering a girl’s house while her parents are away could easily set up the same kind of situation.

145

Excuse me, but if children are not held as responsble as adults are, then that is an age based restriction… Adults don’t apply to have rights and responsibilities- they have them whether they wish to or not. An age based restriction which you would eliminate.Unless, of course it is your position that a person can choose to be treated as a child ,taking on no adult rights and responsibilities for as long as they wish to, which leaves us with 35 year olds with no adult rights and responsibilities.

It doesn’t involve killing people, exactly. It does involve not understanding the consequences of your actions, and being impulsive. Which may lead to someone’s death, and has more than once.

But if it must be proven, the presumption is being made that the six month old can consent. It’s a rebuttable presumption, but still a presumption. And that’s far more inaccurate a presumption to make than that a ten year old can’t consent.

I didn’t say there’s nothing wrong with criminalizing it because its easy to avoid being caught. I simply asked what extreme measures you were talking about.

You didn’t say it in so many words, but you are in favor of eliminating all age based restrictions, aren’t you? Yet you also have said that children should be able to apply for adult responsibilities and rights, and they get to choose whether to apply or not.Meaning they are entitled to parental support if they want it- all they have to do is opt to remain a child. I didn’t have the option when I was 18 to choose not to take on adult responsibilities and not gain adult rights and therefore continue to be treated as a child and have a right to be supported by my parents. You would give that option to a minor . Another age based restriction- one that works against adults.Although you say you want to eliminate age based restrictions, you really want to replace them with a different one- those under a certain age can choose which rights and responsibilities they want.

And so would changing the law to make the presumption that the minor can’t consent a rebuttable presumption (requiring the defendant to prove the minor is capable of consent) , or lowering the age of consent to 13. Both of which would leave the entirely accurate presumption in law that a six month old or a two year old or a five year old cannot consent. You argue that the legal presumption that a 14 year old is incapable of consent is inaccurate, but would replace it with the less accurate presumption that a two year old is capable of consent.

146

Only if the dividing line between “children” and “adults” is specified by age. An alternative would be to consider everyone a “child” until they choose to advance, regardless of age, in which case parents would probably need some way to legally prove their children are able to support themselves.

The presumption is that everyone can consent unless there’s evidence to the contrary. If there’s evidence that six month olds as a group are incapable of giving consent, you have nothing to worry about.

Hey, I’m willing to give it to everyone, with the caveat above.

No… the present law defines ability to consent as a function of age. I would give everyone the benefit of the doubt, regardless of age, unless they can be proven incompetent individually, or unless there’s actual scientific evidence correlating age to ability to consent (as I believe there is for 6 month olds and 2 year olds).

147

Oh, great, so a thirty-five year old whose parents can’t prove he or she is capable of self-support or who don’t mind continuing the support gets a get-out-of- jail-free card.

Law doesn’t work that way. If you presume that everyone can consent, evidence that six month olds as a group can’t consent doesn’t matter. The inability still has to be proven on an individual basis.

Still age based, although the age would be different.

148

He can’t drive a car, sign a contract, apply for credit or housing, vote, run for office, buy cigarettes or alcohol, make his own medical decisions, have sex, or skip school. If he’s willing to give all that up just to stay in the juvenile justice system, and his parents are willing to be responsible for him, then more power to them all.

Which can be done in a matter of minutes:

“Your Honor, medical evidence presented last year by Dr. Nick Riviera during the case of Bignose v. Mullethead showed conclusively that the Flapjack area of the brain, which is necessary for understanding the consequences of sex, is not developed until age 10 at the earliest. I have here a copy of Dr. Riviera’s peer-reviewed report, and the doctor himself is waiting in the lobby. Shall I call him as an expert witness?”

“No, counsel, we all remember that case.”

“Very well. I also have a copy of the victim’s birth certificate, showing that she is only six years old.”

“I see. This court finds the defendant guilty of rape in the second degree.”

Is that an arbitrary age-based restriction? No, because the hypothetical scientific evidence proves that children younger than age 10 are incapable of giving consent. Not many, not most, but all of them; the age is determined by nature and biological science, not human prejudice.

149

Believe it or not, I know several people who woulgn’t really have a problem with this- as they don’t drive ,have credit ,smoke or drink, and still live with their parents over age 40. They also wouldn’t necesarily have to go to school- compulsory education laws don’t generally cover all minors. And by the, way they could still have sex- their partners would just be taking a chance at being convictd of rape.

Doesn’t work that way. He would indeed have to be called as an expert witness. And his testimony would take time. If you’re willing to set a de facto age based on scientific evidence, what exactly is the problem with setting an age in the law,based on scientific evidence?

It’s an age based restriction, arbitrary or not. And science will never prove that all of any group have or lack a particular characteristic- it takes only a single case which may not yet have been found to be wrong.

150

But when can the parents opt out? How old can a kid be before the parents can say, “Enough is enough, you’re on your own now”? Or is there an age where the kid is entitled to support (if they opt for it) and therefore the parents (or guardians) are obligated to support them? What age would that be? Age 35? Age 25? Age 18? Age 12? What? This can’t be all one-sided, where the kid decides at which age they are ready to be out on their own, and the parents have to play along.

You said yourself with the 35 year old, the parents have to be willing to be responsible for them. So therefore, if the parents are not willing to be responsible for them, they won’t be supported, right? So what if the parents are not willing to be resonsible for a 12 year old? What if they are not willing to be responsible for a 17 year old? A 19 year old? If a 19 year old wants someone else to be responsible for them, who will step up to the plate (if the parents won’t)? Or are they on their own, whether they want to be or not? And at what age should they be forced to be on their own? Or do you not want anyone to be forced to be on their own? And if that is the case, who will look out for them and be responsible for them (at any age)?

151

Surely they could call a local doctor instead, one familiar with the evidence.

Let me know when science shows that no one under 18 is capable of voting or agreeing to contracts, no one under 16 can drive safely or give informed consent to sex, and no one under 21 can safely drink alcohol. I think the populations of several countries would be shocked.

I’m willing to set restrictions based on fact, but not prejudice, assumptions, or conjecture. If Kubrickstan[sup]*[/sup] limits an activity based on age, it will only be because science has shown that individualized testing is unnecessary when the people in question are below that age.

[sup]*[/sup] Sounds better than Mr2001Topia :slight_smile:

It’s merely a shortcut around an individual test for cases where we already know the outcome of that test. If there’s doubt as to what the test’s outcome would be, then applying the age restriction would be inappropriate.

If there’s no proof that all members of a group lack a particular characteristic, then it makes no sense to deny rights to all members of that group based on their lack of that characteristic: “You can’t bring your Chevrolet through the car wash because Chevrolets are too big to fit inside.” “My Chevy Metro will fit.” “That doesn’t matter. Chevrolets are too big by definition.”

However, it’s misleading to say that science can’t prove that members of a group lack a characteristic. Science is always open to new evidence; we don’t know for certain that the sun will rise in the west tomorrow, or that a dropped object will fall to the ground. But no one seriously believes otherwise; it’s not a matter of debate. It happened yesterday, and the day before that, and for centuries before that, and we have no reason to think it will be any different tomorrow.

The same is true of six month olds being able to drive a car. There has never been a six month old who could drive a car, and we have no reason to believe there ever will be. It could happen tomorrow, contradicting everything we know about biology and human development, just as the sun could rise in the north, contradicting everything we know about the Earth’s rotation and the laws of physics. But no one seriously believes it will; it’s not a matter of debate.

The same is not true of 17 year olds voting, 20 year olds drinking alcohol, or 15 year olds driving. The only reason the voting age is 18 is that the law says the voting age shall be 18. It used to be 21, and it was changed because of political pressure, not new scientific discoveries. It could just as easily be 17, 19, or 22, with just as much justification.

Whenever they can show that he can handle his own life. If the kid can pay rent, put food on his table, and take himself to school and work at age 17, or 15, or 13, the parents ought to be able to show that he doesn’t need their support.

If you’re expecting me to give an age, you don’t understand my position very well.

Suppose I said 18. You might reply, “Why not 17 and a half? Six months can’t make that much difference.” And I would have to shrug. That’s the problem with arbitrary age restrictions.

152

But you’re not really answering the question. Doreen (and I) both know people who are not doing anything to indicate that they can “handle their own life”, way past the age of 18. They can’t hold down a job, they take no responsibility for themselves financially—they just can’t get it together. They may be bums or screw-ups or basket cases or whatever.

How does a parent prove that a (let’s say) 25 year old professional screw-up is really ready to be out on his or her own, when the 25 year old has done nothing in their life to prove this, and seems completely unwilling to be out on their own? Do the parents just say that they “think” the 25 year old is mature enough to be on their own, even though they have no evidence to back it up?

And can’t they say the same thing about their fiesty 12-year-old? “We think he’s mature enough to be out on his own, even though he doesn’t drive, can’t get a job, and doesn’t do much other than stay home and hang out with his friends.” They could say this about a 12 year old, a 15 year old, 25 or 35 year old. Should they be able to force a 12 year old out if they think the kid is ready to be on his own? And if they can’t kick out the 12-year-old with no proof other than their opinion, how can they kick out a 35 year old who isn’t proving that he’s ready to be independent?

153

“West” should be “east”, of course. (Insert joking speculation as to which planet I live on.)

They can say that, and then the government will investigate whether this person is a deadbeat who really is capable of providing for himself, or whether he genuinely can’t (somewhat similar to CPS or welfare/worker’s comp qualifications). A judge or panel reviews the results of the investigation, as well as testimony of the parents and child, and makes the final decision.

154

So basically, if a kid is enough of a sad sack and can’t get it together, their parents are on the hook and must support them for decades?

Wow. That sucks.

And, what happens if both parents die (of old age, perhaps) and the kid is still not together enough to make it on their own? What happens then?

155

Yeah. Almost as much as curfew laws and disenfranchisement.

Of course, we’re still talking about ‘maturity’ as in mental and physical development, right? I think “disabled” might be more appropriate than “sad sack” to describe someone who isn’t capable of handling his own affairs at age 35.

You tell me. What happens when someone is born with an IQ of 40 and is never able to support himself, after his relatives have passed away?

156

But how do you prove that?

No, you’re still not getting it.

There are plenty of people who are not (through their actions and attitudes) showing any evidence that they can make it out on their own at age 35. “Sad sack” is the term for it, not “disabled”. If you haven’t met such people, I am happy for you. But that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

You’re dodging the issue. We’re not talking about mentally retarded people, and we’re not talking about disabled people. We’re talking about sad sacks. They do nothing to prove they can be on their own. They’re not technically retarded or disabled, just sad sacks. There are 15 year old sad sacks, and some 34 year old sad sacks. They can’t make it on their own.

After all, how do you prove someone is mature and capable? Through their actions and their behavior, at least in part. Mental and physical development are the other part of it. Someone may have a reasonably high IQ, but they are a sad sack. Can’t keep a job, can’t get it together. A total screw up. So, should they be forced to support themselves, even though they have done nothing to prove they are capable of doing so?

And if it can be proven that a 35 year old sad sack should be forced out on his own (even though he’s done nothing to prove he’s capable) does that mean that a younger kid must be out on their own, even if they don’t want to be? What if, say, a 15 year old kid still wants to be a kid for a while longer, not take a job, not be out on their own, but their parents want them out? Do they have to go, if the parents can prove that they are “mature” enough? Or are kids still allowed to be “kids”, even if they are technically capable of being on their own?

157

I have no doubt that they exist. The question is whether their situation is caused by a physiological incapacity or mere laziness (or lack of motivation, poor education, etc.).

If someone is incapable of providing for himself because he’s still physically developing, he’s a late bloomer. If he’ll never be developed enough to provide for himself, he has a disability. If he is developed enough but simply doesn’t provide for himself, he’s a “sad sack”. Which category a particular person falls into is something for a doctor to decide.

If they’re physiologically capable but simply haven’t gotten off their ass, then yes. Now is the time for them to get off that ass.

You might ask the same thing today: Should an 18 year old be forced to support himself, even though he’s done nothing to prove he’s capable? At 18 it’s likely that he’s still in high school, and has no more job experience than a year at McDonald’s, if that. His lack of a credit record puts him at a huge disadvantage for getting housing or utilities. Yet his parents can kick him to the curb just because he has gone around the sun 18 times.

I don’t see how the physical and mental capacity to handle one’s own affairs is a less appropriate dividing line than the number of times one has orbited the sun.

On the other hand, since a panel or judge is making the decision, there’s room to consider other factors. If a 15 year old is mentally and physically capable but the fact that he’s still in school prevents him from working full time, the judge might have the parents keep supporting him until he graduates, for example.

What makes the 35 year old sad sack different from the younger sad sack, besides age?

158

And how much effort and expense will it take to prove that? Won’t some of it be subjective?

And if it takes him until age 25 or 30 to “bloom”, are his parents still obligated to support him? And we mustn’t forget the legally responsible part—the parents would be responsible for the “late bloomer” in so many facets. For who knows how long—until they finish “blooming”.

And let’s say they passed their GED at age 15, and are now sitting at home—at age 15 or 16. Time to kick 'em to the curb, then?

I dunno, should he? If he doesn’t want to? If he hasn’t done anything to prove that he can be on his own? Or should his parents continue to support him for years and years? We are going in circles here, I can see.

And if you had your way, his parents could kick him to the curb at age 15, or younger. Or at least they could try. And keep trying.

How will that impact the child’s feeling of stability, to see his parents continually petition the court, attempting to “prove” that the kid is mature enough to be on their own? Maybe they’ll fail to prove it this time, but maybe next time they’ll succeed. Some parents would do this. How will this make a kid feel? How secure will they feel, knowing that their parents are chomping at the bit to get rid of them, and sooner or later they will succeed in doing so? (But of course, there won’t be any set age, or set date. Just whenever the courts are convinced they are “mature” enough—whatever that means.) Oh, we all know that some kids already are well aware that their parents are eager to get rid of them, but at least the kid has the security of knowing that there is a set age limit. If you got your way, no kid would really know when the “axe would fall” and they’d be deemed to be independent enough to be on their own.

And how would you address the problem of one parent wanting to continue to support the kid, while the other doesn’t? What if one parent is a “deadbeat” parent, and is quite eager to give up support for the kid? Will there be any restrictions as to how often the parent can petition the court to prove that the kid is “mature enough”? And if there is no limit to the amount of petitions, won’t that be complicated, extraordinarily expensive and somewhat traumatic to the child and the other parent to be constantly dragged into court, to prove once again that the kid isn’t capable to be out on their own?

What? And you mean that college kids are unable to work and support themselves and go to school full time? It happens all the time. So I don’t know why many a “mature” high school kid (who is only a few years younger than a college kid) couldn’t be expected to do the same. And hell—the kid would still be going to public school, so they don’t have to pay for their education, like a college kid does. No college loans to pay off. What a deal! Piece of cake! So I don’t see any reason why they can’t handle a full time job and school, if they are deemed “mature” enough.

Well, the way things are now, the 35 year old is supposed to be out on their own, and the 35 year old is legally obligated to be responsible for themselves. If you had your way, a “sad sack” (of any age) would have to be proven to be capable to be on their own before their parents would be off the hook for their support. So who knows how long that could take? And all the paperwork, appearances in court, yadda yadda yadda. That’s not the current system, that’s what you want.

159

Local doctor or not, he (or she) would have to first be qualified as an expert witness in order to give testimony consisting of an opinion. It is an opinion, in exactly the same way that the cause of death in a murder case is an opinion. The qualification takes time , the testimony takes time and it doesn’t matter if the same testimony was given a hundred times last year. It still has to be given in this case.

Fine with me, but that’s not where you started out.

Which is exactly why I said earlier that you seem to be thinking of a specific age range when you argue against age based restrictions. I haven’t said that a particular age is the right age for any of these restrictions, and have no objection to lowering them or allowing exceptions based on evidence. You have said that a five year old should be able to apply for a drivers license on the same basis as an adult , and that everyone should be presumed to be able to consent to sex until proven otherwise ( and perhaps I misunderstood, but it appeared that that proof would be in the individual case, not used as a basis for an age restriction in law. )

The rest of us support him or her theough SSI. I don’t want to do that for someone who is incapable of supporting themselves because they chose to be incapable.

160

Probably, which is why it’s decided by a judge or panel instead of a robot. How much effort and expense? Less than supporting the kid for several more years.

If the parents can show that he’s capable of supporting himself, then sure. I thought I made that clear.

If they succeeded, it would mean that he really is capable of supporting himself.

Let’s see… 6 hours of high school, plus 8 hours of work, plus 8 hours of sleep comes out to 22 hours each day. I suppose you’d have him cram homework, studying, eating, hygiene, and errands into the remaining two hours? Or would he only eat and shower on weekends?

Now, if he’s skilled enough that he can support himself working only a few hours a day, you may have a point. And the judge would take that into account.

I’m sure elections were much cheaper and faster before women and 18-20 year olds were allowed to vote too, but the benefits of civil rights outweigh the extra overhead.

Coroners are routinely called to testify about causes of death, as you hinted. Is that an unreasonable expense? I don’t see how calling a doctor to testify about a child’s ability to consent would be any more of a burden.

I believe it is. “Individualized testing is unnecessary” means that we know something about all those individuals… much like we know that if an object is bigger than a shoebox, we automatically know it isn’t smaller than a matchbox. If we can prove that the brain isn’t developed enough for task X until a certain age at the earliest, then it follows naturally that someone who hasn’t reached that age isn’t ready for task X, with no further tests required.

I would be careful to include an appeal procedure, though, to allow truly individual tests to be done in extreme cases - hormone imbalance, brain damage, etc.

In that case, we agree on the core practical issue: young people shouldn’t be prevented from doing something merely because of their age.

I also believe that young people shouldn’t have to jump through any extra hoops based on their age; they shouldn’t be presumed incompetent while older people are presumed competent. But in reality, if the ages were significantly lowered and/or exceptions were routinely granted for all age-based laws, I’d have very little left to complain about. There is something to be said for the validation and kids would feel after winning their own rights, and they’d certainly respect those rights more than someone who just waits to turn 18.

That’s correct. I think the gap in our communication is that I believe a sufficient ‘group test’ can be used as a surrogate for individual proof in many situations–but it will have to be held to a higher standard than “Gee, most 18 year olds I know can do X, but only some of the 17 year olds can, so let’s say the age is 18”. (Clearly, if some 17 year olds can do X, the age should be no higher than 17.)

The individual test is still paramount, and if there’s reason to believe that the conclusions of an age-group study don’t apply to a particular person, an individual test may be applied instead.