Where does the Western concept of "legal" age come from?

Factual Questions
1

I’m not exactly a scholar of the Torah or the Bible or any other scripture for that matter, but so much of modern Western civilization is based on Judeo/Christian law and yet we have a concept of “lega age” that inb many, if not most, cases is in contradiction of these traditions. Not that I have a problem with it, and at times think raising it to 20-21 for all things may be a good idea.

Bust where did thje idea of “18=Adult” originate? Was is a progression? I mean at some point Abraham was trying to marry off his 14 year old spinster of a duaghter and the next thing you know she’s on Ricki Lake as an “out of control teen”.

2

I don’t know the history of “Age of Consent,” but I have noticed these things vary wildly even within the Western world.

As a Canadian on a predominantly American message board, I’m always surprised by thread titles such as “Is it okay to notice underage girls” – underage in Canada, means under fourteen for most kinds of sex. In a thread about a 17-year-old guy bringing his 21-year-old boyfriend to the prom, someone expressed concern that the 17-year-old was “underage” – not true since he lived in Ontario.

Legal drinking in age in Canada is 18 or 19. In the US, it’s 21 or 22. In Europe, it’s often lower. Voting age is more uniformly 18, and that may be the standard the other things are based on.

Just a WAG, but I’m guessing it started in the Industrial Revolution – probably when children working in factories fell out of favour and universal public education gained popularity.

3

Good question. I haven’t been able to find an answer to this anywhere. It seems rather arbitrary to me. I doubt any studies were done to show that at 18, you are ready to accept all the responsibilities of being an adult, EXCEPT for alcohol, of course. Only those who have obtained 21 years can handle that.

4

IMO:

It might be that most people graduate high school at age 18.

Up into the 19th century, without standardize school systems, children would go to school as much as they needed to. Some would go to college at 14. Others would be apprentices/indentured servants from age 10, then be considered adults once their contract was finished.

When child labor laws were enacted, factory-enslave children were instead sent to school. Childhood apprenticeships went away too. The government selected a 12-year cirriculum, which was probably the usual pre-college school length at that time.

Also at that time, young teens (13-17) were joining the military (Civil War, Spanish-American War, etc.). Outcry of this made lawmakers limit military service only to people who’d finished school, i.e., 18 years of age.

Other age limits weren’t unknown then, though. Congressmen (25 & 30 years) and the president (35 years) had such limits.

5

The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as someone under 18. So whatever its origins, it’s been accepted internationally.

It’s 21.

6

ok, here’s my personal opinion…

it was incorporated in order to offer consistency to the legal system. It must, at some point in the not very distant past, have been concluded that children below a certain age, on average, were not very good at making safe decisions/ correct judgements / legal use of / etc. in specific circumstances. It was then decided to make such actions illegal if performed by persons below a certain age, making it a whole lot easier for the legal system to function (i.e. to protect society as a whole).

I personally feel that people below the legal age, who might be more capable/mature/safe/etc. than others, have to wait a bit longer in order to legally perform these actions and therefore might not be too happy with the concept of a “legal” age. Heck, i was a way better driver at 17 than most people above the legal age will ever be. But i guess the concept of a “legal” age makes it easier for the system to determine competency of an individual, rather than treat each case individually.

Also, the probability that a person below the “legal” age makes an incompetent decision might be considered unacceptably high by the legal system. The law thus preempts any damage that might be caused if such persons are allowed to perform these actions.

E.g. Let’s say the legal system determines the following:

The probabilty that an average 13 year old at the wheel will cause an accident is extremely high. This probability is greatly reduced by the time the average person reaches 18 years of age. Hence, we determine that the legal age requirement for a person seeking a full valid licence in <insert countrt here> is 18 yrs.

Ofcourse, my theory covers only things that might cause direct physical harm. So let’s say you’re asking about why an 8 yr old can’t legally watch a graphically violent film. I guess that this is because in such cases (as opposed to cases discussed earlier) the law seeks to protect young persons from being adversely affected by the content of said film. Again, apply probability theory here. Determine that an 8 yr old watching a graphically violent film will have a high chance of experiencing recurring nightmares. Determine, also, that when this average 8 yr old turns 18, he/she will be aware of the consequences of watching such a graphically violent film, and therefore can make a competent choice based on sound reasoning and is consequently personally held responsible for the choice he/she makes. So, if he/she watches such a film at age 18+ and has recurring nightmares as a result of it, that was his/her own judgement call.

ok…i’m just rambling… but i hope you get my point… lemme just re-read the question…

ok… about the progression bit… i assume there would have been a progression… an evolution, so to speak, of the laws… if the law makers realize/determine that a specific legal age for a given action does not fit in the current scheme of things they will (and have done so in the past) change the age limit… this is progression… laws that hold true today might be changed tomorrow… this will be further progression… so while it was legally/morally/socially accepted in the past to marry off a 14 year old, “western civ.” today deems it to be unlawful. This is “progression” too. Perhaps parts of the globe still legally practice child marriage (I know it happens in my country, even though it is now illegal). So, basically, legal age is determined by law makers to protect the system as a whole.

i shall stop rambling now… i don’t know how much sense i made… i need coffee…

for the mods: even though this thread may evoke more opinion than fact, i think it rightly deserves to stay in GQ, because it has a factual answer. We just don’t “know” it. yet. Also, the opinions stated could lead to a summation of the facts.

for the rest: please feel free to applaud my beautiful theory.

i should stop typing further now… because it is illegal to drink and derive at any age :stuck_out_tongue:

7

I feel sort of stupid posting this, but after a failed googling, this is all I can contribute:

I was once told by a professor of mine that the “adult at 21” rule had someting to do with the completion of a knight’s training in medeival Europe. Apparently (so said this learned man) a male child from a noble family would be fostered out to another, usually higher-ranking noble family at the age of seven. (Seven being traditionally the “age of reason” in medeival times according to both the church and the law, this being seen as the time when a child learns to distinguish morally between right and wrong. No, I don’t know why this is, either.) From age seven to fourteen, the child was schooled in basics of religion, language, history, etc., and also learned useful skills such as horse-back riding and swordsmanship. At age fourteen, training as a warrior or knight would begin in earnest, and after another seven years’ time, at age 21, knightship would be conferred and his adult career would begin. This system survived in one form or another down through the ages and is now a part of modern-day US law, at least as far as age 21 is concerned.

A good theory, but neither I nor my professor has anything to back it up.

Maybe some long-forgotten cultural relic of numerology is involved? Both 3 and 7 (and therefore their multiples) being auspicious numbers in most Western tradition, and also possibly representing various stages of life and maturity.

Again, this is only conjecture. But it’s the best I can come up with. Maybe we’ll get lucky and some more competent historian or googler will intervene and enlighten us.

8

I don’t know that the concept of “legal age” is specifically Western. Most - probably all - societies reckon that there is a transition from immaturity to maturity and that, with growing maturity, we should confer both greater rights and greater responsibilities on the individual.

As this is a process and not an event, it is to be expected that different ages will be regarded as significant milestones in different societies, or even in the same society. Age of criminal responsibility, age of consent for sexual purposes, voting age, driving age, drinking age, age at which contracts can be enforced - these frequently differ within a single society, and more so between societies.

If the question is “why is age 18 regarded as a relatively signficant milestone in many Western societies?” the answer is probably “well, there has to be a voting age”. It has probably crystallised at 18 in many Western (and other) societies because that is around the age at which people make the transition from high school to full-time employment/college, and from then on they are generally expected to display a significantly higher degree of personal responsibility that has been expected up to then.

9

Germans, correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe I remember reading that the Age of Consent for sex with an adult in Germany is 14 years old, unless they are in a subordinate position (teacher/student kind of thing), in which case it’s 16. However, they may not marry without parents consent until 18. So, unless I’m remembering incorrectly, it’s OK for a 25 year old guy to go have sex with a 14 year old girl in Germany. In the states, that guy’d be locked up for statutory rape.

Jman

10

“Legal drinking in age in Canada is 18 or 19. In the US, it’s 21 or 22.”

But almost every state has some variance of the laws and age somewhere in the books, so its really a toss up.

11

Yes, for the age of (sexsual) consent, but the voting age and the drinking age are uniform throughout the country. The federal government told the states that it wouldn’t give them any highway money unless they raised their drinking ages to 21, which they all eventually did.

–Cliffy

12

Of course, that’s debatable.