How old is 'old enough'?

In the thread about the student removed from a summer class aboard ship, several people called the college senior a kid, and made it clear they believed she was too young to be 'abandoned' in a foreign country. Without fighting the details of this particular incident (did she really cheat, was the punishment to harsh), is there an age at which society can consider someone a responsible adult? I don't mean how you regard your own child--advice and help from parents often last a lifetime--but is there an age at which we should expect someone to be an equal member of society, with all of the benefits and responsibilities that implies?

What I mean is this: if someone who is under the legal age of majority cannot be treated as a legal adult for the sake of their benefit (like voting), then they also should never be treated as an adult for the purpose of their detriment (like trying an eleven-year-old as an adult for murder, or imprisoning a sixteen-year-old for having sex with his fifteen-year-old girlfriend.)

Consistency would be nice. I don't care whether the legal age of adulthood is sixteen, eighteen, or twenty-one. But we need to pick an age and stick with it. Anyone younger doesn't get the privileges OR the responsibilities and consequences of adulthood, and anyone older gets them all--including the right to purchase and consume alcohol.

I've always thought that the stupidest thing in the world is the fact that eighteen-year-olds are considered old enough to vote, fight and die in the military, and gamble, but NOT old enough to buy a beer. Seriously. It's just stupid.

Consistency = sanity.

Part of the problem is that we want to make exceptions that fit our own views--law and order types want capital punishment for 16 year olds, and helicopter parents want 25 year olds to be treated like children.

What about the notion of individual differences being a rationale for treating people differently under the law (e.g. trying one 15 year old as an 18 year old in a criminal proceeding but not another)? I do think that it is pretty clear that people mature and develop at different rates, so wouldn't an absolute system lose the consideration of those differences?

On the surface, that seems like a fair system, but the constitution requires us to make laws that are clear, focused, and not tailored to any specific person/situation. Recall the outrage about the Republicans attempts to interfere in the Terri Schiavo case, even going so far as to try and create a law specifically tailored to keep her husband from fulfilling her wishes. That was obviously unconstitutional, and I can't see how any law that isn't exactly the same for every citizen would be any different.

Since the constitution requires that we must treat all citizens equally under the law, the best we can do is to choose an age and then be very consistent about it.

Why not choose a weight or a height? Should Spanish class be compulsory for 12-year-olds who are completely fluent in English and Spanish?

There is only one remedy for a constitutional conflict, and arguing about it on DU isn't it. The constitution requires clear, focused laws that treat all citizens equally, without being overly broad or permitting different sets of legal standards for different groups when in regard to the exact same issue. If you see some way to get around it, please feel free to share.

But how do we allow for different rates of development? I know some incredibly responsible 18 year olds, as well as some much older people who are still immature, but have wondered if there would be less of the latter if we (society as a whole) treated 18 (or 21 or whatever) year olds are ready for responsibility.

As just a matter of practicality, I'm not sure if we are really prepared as a society to begin to differentiate that sort of thing on an individual basis. I think that as neuroscience continues to progress, we might be able to figure out some pretty useful analogs in terms of psychometric testing that we can use to simply, easily, and cheaply determine where someone "is" in terms of their mental maturity.

Driving, voting, having sex, being tried, being tried as an adult, flying airoplanes, running for Congress, purchasing alcohol, joining the military etc should not all kick in at the same age, because some of them require more responsibility than others.

16-year-olds should probably be allowed to have sex, and possibly to vote, but not to join the military, and probably not to drive on public highways; they should be allowed to be tried, but the law should make concessions to their age.

A 14-year-old is a child.
A 21-year-old is a responsible adult.

Between those, I think it's a continuum.

Wish I'd known that about 16 year olds when I was 16!

Hell, there are some 35-year-old who are not mature enough to be responsible adults. But the law has to pick a number. I'd say 18 is fine to be held accountable as an adult. Yes, you are still young and immature but we -- as a nation -- tend to mollycoddle our young far too long. So suck it up and realize you're an adult.

I do not want 18-year-olds flying air liners.

I do not want 17-year-olds being banned from having sex.

One of the lines that has to be drawn is "at what age are you legally accountable as an adult", and 18 seems like a reasonable choice for that (as does 17, as possibly does 19). But other lines should be drawn in other places.

I'm not disagreeing, just wondering if you think there are benefits/responsibilities that should come later?

for society to expect people to be responsible for their actions if they also want the benefits of being independent.

did they permit these students to drink? Did they hold their passports for them? Did they hold their money?

The students, when off ship, are free to do whatever they want, and they do. The only time this may not be true is when they go to certain countries where certain dangers might occur. They are treated like any college on any campus: while in "the dorm" and in "classrooms" (ie the ship), they have to obey certain rules (no drugs, cheating, whatever).

The students are responsible for getting back to the ship on time, etc.

;-)

I'd have it be younger if I could have my own way. Maybe 16. We coddle our children so that 21-22 year olds are seen as not responsible for their own actions. Not too long ago 21-22 year olds would usually be parents, and working a trade, that they'd been apprenticed to from when they were 7 years old. In a number of cultures the age of 13 used to be considered adulthood.

For us though 18. Other than drinking booze, you can do pretty much anything but run for President at 18. Fight in wars, drive, vote, enter into legal contracts, perform in pornography, you name it.

My parents laid it out for me when I was 16 and was still constantly getting into trouble, and that if I kept doing what I was doing when I was 18 I'd be in jail. My first day of college during the orientation the first speaker said something along the lines of "this is the real world now, and nobody is here to take care of you. You're adults. Nobody is going to watch your back. If you have a question you come to us and we'll help you, but we won't know what you need unless you come talk to us. We're not going to keep tabs on you for you."

So I say 18.

off a ship, airplane or other transportation to unexpectedly fend for themselves. If a person becomes undesirable for whatever reason and there is a need to remove them, it seems that arrangements should have been made to get them back to the country of their origin safely first before removing them.

they will need to make accomodations to get themselves home should they be expelled. It's not like when I put 14yo kids on a plane back to the US for violating the rules when we were in France. I took them to the airport and their parents were responsible for picking them up.

If you agree to the terms of a contract, you should be held accountable to it. UVa has a one strike you're out Honor Code. I applaud it.