PDA

View Full Version : Upon what age should one be considered an adult [legally]?


Patchisou Yutohru
July 1st, 2011, 11:29 AM
This question stemmed from reading LiveWire's reply to FreakyLocz's thread How young is too young? (http://www.pokecommunity.com/showthread.php?t=256096) I was originally going to reply to his post there, but decided that that would drift the conversation into something that, although similar, is too vast for that particular discussion. That being said, a lot of the threads here deal with "Oh they're too young!" and things like that, and it got me thinking. In general, when should that statement be put to an end? Sure there are going to be older people who always say that, but that's just the way it is.

When it comes to legal things, like gaining the rights of an adult, upon what age do you think someone should be considered an adult? Common ages I've found range between 16-21. Additionally, apart from driving and a few other things that already hold this mindset, do you think that someone should gain the rights of an adult all at once, or should it come little by little until a certain age?

Sweet Candace
July 1st, 2011, 11:30 AM
I would say anywhere from age 18 to age 21, one would be considered an adult. But the age bracket would probably vary from person to person.

Patchisou Yutohru
July 1st, 2011, 11:35 AM
I would say anywhere from age 18 to age 21, one would be considered an adult. But the age bracket would probably vary from person to person.
Which leads me to ask:
a. Which age, exactly, do you think one should gain full legal responsibility and be considered an adult?
b. Do you think they should gain rights all at once, or do you feel that the change to becoming legally responsible be a gradual one?

Sure the age bracket would vary from person to person, but how do you feel?

Alley Cat
July 1st, 2011, 11:37 AM
The government does need to decide upon a uniform age.
The whole old enough to do this, but not old enough to do that is really annoying. Not to mention that amusement parks consider you an adult at like 12...

I don't really care what the age is, because I'm still going to be doing these illegal things whether they are legalized or not. >:D Have fun, you live oncee! That's just me, who I am, and what I do. But the government, for their sake, might want to make the age as low as possible. They'll save money when they have to make less arrests and use less man hours rounding everyone up, because hey, they'll be considered legal.

Gaining rights bit by bit is ridiculous. Either you're an adult, or you aren't.

Sweet Candace
July 1st, 2011, 11:38 AM
Which leads me to ask:
a. Which age, exactly, do you think one should gain full legal responsibility and be considered an adult?
b. Do you think they should gain rights all at once, or do you feel that the change to becoming legally responsible be a gradual one?

Sure the age bracket would vary from person to person, but how do you feel?

A. Well, to be more percise, I would say 20 or 21. Most people are almost done with college, if they went to college, and are getting jobs and family started.
B. I think it's best to give legal responsibilities gradually instead of all at once. This would be best are it would prevent people from taking advantage of everything being an adult has to offer without being a mature adult first.

Honestly, I really think that if a person's mature enough to be considered an adult, they should be considered one.

Livewire
July 1st, 2011, 11:41 AM
I feel famous now.

I stand by what I said earlier. At 16, you are a young adult, which is basically a glorified term that says you're still a child, just with a few more responsibilities, and not quite an adult yet. That being so, the government imposes these limitations for a reason, not for the hell of it. I couldn't even begin to imagine sending my son to fight in a war, say Iraq, at 16. I don't want the weight of the world thrown at a child any earlier than it has to be. Even at 18 it isn't easy, it's not like once you turn 18 it's rainbows and sunshine - No one will be there to hold your hand through college, a real career, marriage, raising a family, putting that family through college, and ensuring that they take the right path in life, and that you leave the world in a better place than you found it. With age comes experience, once you've been around the block a few times you know what to expect and you're better prepared for what comes at you.

Alley Cat
July 1st, 2011, 11:47 AM
I stand by what I said earlier. At 16, you are a young adult, which is basically a glorified term that says you're still a child, just with a few more responsibilities, and not quite an adult yet.

That's reasonable. It's like a demo. Come wade in the shallow waters, and if you can handle it, we'll let you swim a little deeper. Because even for those people who are 16, you mess up, you're gonna have to wait longer. My sister drove without a license, has to be 21 before she can get it. So, that's reasonable. But they don't need all these different ages. 16 to drive, 18 to smoke, and be tried as an adult, and 21 to drink, gamble etc. If the courts are legally trying you as an adult, then you shuld be able to have a drink or smoke or have sex if you want.

&& You mentioned soldiers and war. Anyone old enough to go over and fight for our country, should be old enough to sit back and enjoy a beer. Whether they lower the drinking age, or raise the enlistment age.

Guy
July 1st, 2011, 11:49 AM
a. Which age, exactly, do you think one should gain full legal responsibility and be considered an adult?

b. Do you think they should gain rights all at once, or do you feel that the change to becoming legally responsible be a gradual one?

To answer both questions at once, I see it better that a person is given legal rights gradually over time. For instance, when one turns 16 they are permitted to get their driver's license, but at the age of 18 here in the US, an individual would be considered finally legal enough to handle certain cases on their own without parental consent. However, they're not given full permission to all legal rights such as being able to drink, or if they're attending college they have to be at least 24 of age to be considered an Independent Student. The later might depend on what state you're living in, but I'm not exactly sure.

I see it wiser for a person to gradually be given their rights simply because not everyone is responsible enough to handle everything at a younger age. Even at 18, yes you've graduated high school, yes you're considered legal, but that doesn't say you're mature enough or have the experience of someone who is older.

In short, I agree with Live Wire's statement when he said, "With age comes expierence, once you've been around the block a few times you know what to expect and you're better prepared for what comes at you."

Bluerang1
July 1st, 2011, 11:52 AM
20. I don't know why 21 is more celebrated. 20 because from then on you stop being a "teen". EG. Seventeen, Eighteen, Nineteen. However I think 18 is good too since most people would have graduated from school and are ready for the big world ahead.

Mentality is another thing. I sometimes think I'm mature enough to be an adult but I have my childish/teen/pre-teen moments xD

Guy
July 1st, 2011, 11:58 AM
However I think 18 is good too since most people would have graduated from school and are ready for the big world ahead.
I'd have to disagree with that one statement. While eighteen is a fine age to be considered legal with limited rights, I don't think it's in the sense where a person is ready for everything the big world ahead has to offer. There's still so much to learn after graduating high school, so much more to experience that not everything is as easily taken in as it may seem.

Of course, mentality and maturity are all things that vary from person to person, what one may have a lot of, the other may have less. But it isn't to say that at the age of 18 everyone, regardless of maturity, is ready for everything a "legal" adult so to speak would have to face. It's a big responsibility to take on; something I think college, time, and experience prepares people for.

Alley Cat
July 1st, 2011, 12:03 PM
Of course, mentality and maturity are all things that vary from person to person, but it isn't to say that at the age of 18 everyone is ready for everything a "legal" adult so to speak would face. "With age comes experience and wisdom," words I can say are true.

That's the hard thing. Someone 18 could have just as much world experience as someone 30. Evertying is so situation dependent, but the government cant run around and apply certain standards to certain people. That'd A) Be too much work and B) Be unfair. They need solid, definite guidelines, rules and regulations, and they need to stick to them.

Livewire
July 1st, 2011, 12:08 PM
That's the hard thing. Evertying is so situation dependent, but the government cant run around and apply certain standards to certain people. That'd A) Be too much work and B) Be unfair. They need solid, definite guidelines, rules and regulations, and they need to stick to them.

Well true, but that same argument applies to this part too:

"Someone 18 could have just as much world experience as someone 30."While cases like that exist, they're not the norm. The government is going to go by what they perceive the standard to be, which is that most 18 year old don't have world experiences equivalent to that of a 30 year old. But you're right, it's quite situational in nature.

Alley Cat
July 1st, 2011, 12:10 PM
Well true, but that same argument applies to this part too:



While cases like that exist, they're not the norm. The goverment is going to go by what they perceive the standard to be, which is that most 18 year old don't have world experiences equivalent to that of a 30 year old.
Agreed to that. People are always going to be out of the situationl norm, and they can't expect the law to not apply to them. They're going to try and fight it, but they shouldn't. The laws are there because they are what is fair(in most cases) and they shouldn't be challenged.

Most cops I know, though, won't even run you in for under age drinking/smoking/sex having as long as your aren't being a retard about it/doing something horrible dangerous.

FreakyLocz14
July 1st, 2011, 05:02 PM
18 or at least 16 and have finished high school.

Captain Hobo.
July 1st, 2011, 07:18 PM
I think it should be 18 or 21. I don't think it should get any younger.

Team Fail
July 1st, 2011, 11:48 PM
When I read that question, I had to think about it. A lot. But, I couldn't think of a definitive answer. Let me explain why.

I honestly believe that age isn't always an indicator of the maturity and responsibility levels of people. Why? Because I've seen people in their 20s make really stupid decisions. Thing is, people that use their brains would understand that what that other person did was either immature, irresponsible, selfish, whatever the case may be. And then I see some people (sometimes younger than me) that are polite, kind, and think before they do things. The reason the government sets that legal age is because society assumes that by that defined age, we should know what is expected of us and how we should act in society. Yet, some of us see it as a chance to get into bars and strip clubs, and to drink until we can't anymore. It may seem like fun and games at first, but it will eventually hit them that they can't continue to do that for the rest of their lives. I think something more than just a legal age should be a requirement, there should be more measures in place to make people responsible, for example, a certain grade of learning should also be a minimum, or even a driver's (no, not learners) license that has been owned for a few months to show responsibility. Then, through a permissions system, the ability to do things can be granted. Just because you turn 18 (or 21) doesn't mean that you know how and when to make proper decisions. Those kinds of things (bars, clubs) should be a responsibility and it is our right to know what is expected of ourselves.

Kyoko
July 2nd, 2011, 06:29 AM
I honestly think twenty, when "teen" is no longer apart of your age. While yes, we're out of high school at 16/17/18 what have you, doesn't mean everyone in that age range thinks like adults, they're just expected to be treated like adults (and even that's not always the case). I think people still need to mature more even after high school graduation, you learn a lot in your first couple years of college or out in the real world.

FreakyLocz14
July 2nd, 2011, 11:37 AM
I honestly think twenty, when "teen" is no longer apart of your age. While yes, we're out of high school at 16/17/18 what have you, doesn't mean everyone in that age range thinks like adults, they're just expected to be treated like adults (and even that's not always the case). I think people still need to mature more even after high school graduation, you learn a lot in your first couple years of college or out in the real world.

You need to be legally considered an adult to live on your own in college. If not, it's a legal mess.

Bluerang1
July 2nd, 2011, 11:42 AM
You need to be legally considered an adult to live on your own in college. If not, it's a legal mess.

True. Though it makes you wonder what's so special about 21 to ake it the legal drinking age etc.

Alley Cat
July 2nd, 2011, 12:18 PM
True. Though it makes you wonder what's so special about 21 to ake it the legal drinking age etc.

They used to say that its because the brain is more developed then. Which makes sense, alcohol will be less harmful on a fully developed brain. But what doesn't make sense about that, is the fact that the brain doesn't actually full develop until around age 25.

TRIFORCE89
July 3rd, 2011, 04:03 PM
I don't really have a problem with how privileges like driving, voting, or drinking are currently applied based on age.

But, to me, I refer to them as an "adult" or at least a "young adult" once they hit 20. If you're 16, 17, 18, 19, you're in your teens and guess what? That makes you a teenager, not an adult.

Myles
July 3rd, 2011, 04:16 PM
For most things 16. Alcohol may need to be higher; I'm not completely sure because I haven't done a lot of research on that.

As for smoking, ideally (I know this is an unpopular opinion), it should be banned along with the other recreational drugs. It's really only legal because of convention.

Teenager is only a concept that exists in English (due to *teen). Adolescence is defined as between puberty and the legal age of majority.

Livewire
July 4th, 2011, 08:21 AM
I don't really have a problem with how privileges like driving, voting, or drinking are currently applied based on age.

But, to me, I refer to them as an "adult" or at least a "young adult" once they hit 20. If you're 16, 17, 18, 19, you're in your teens and guess what? That makes you a teenager, not an adult.

I agree for the most part, although I'd advocate for a single age for drinking/voting, etc. However, I think it needs to be staged a few years apart so that we don't overwhelm kids with too much responsibility too soon.

~*!*~Tatsujin Gosuto~*!*~
July 4th, 2011, 01:03 PM
I've always thought of an legal adult being a 20 year old because of the ages of 18 and 19 having the word "teen" at the end of the word Which means silly and immature. But even if you are 20, you are one year shy to drink legally and 5 years shy to rent a car in some states.


:t354:TG

shenanigans
July 5th, 2011, 02:45 PM
I've always thought of an legal adult being a 20 year old because of the ages of 18 and 19 having the word "teen" at the end of the word Which means silly and immature. But even if you are 20, you are one year shy to drink legally and 5 years shy to rent a car in some states.
In America anyway. Many countries have a public drinking age of 18.

Anyway, I'd say that it should vary between countries to match whatever the highest age limit for something reasonably common in that country is, for example drinking. So in America, 21 since you have to be 21 to purchase alcohol and in England 18 since you have to be 18 to purchase alcohol.

I'm not saying that it's just based on when you can buy alcohol, but I think it should be the age at which you can do 'anything' legal without having to lie about your age or use a fake ID.

Ink Heart
July 6th, 2011, 03:00 AM
This. This question is hard to answer, hehe. Y'see.. some people act immature at their age, yet some act like super adults. But, in words, I think 20. You know.. it's the end of the teen times. 18.. 19.. Yet, it's surprising how they still watch Playhouse Disney.. (This only applies to some 20+ year old people.. Whom I've seen in real life. I don't know about the others, lol.) And an 8 year old that is wayyy mature.. and adult-ish.

But yeah, 20 or 21.. Those are often considered adults now in my country.. And mostly the ones that say they have the ability to do anything they want.. :P Legally.

cazzler
July 6th, 2011, 05:51 AM
Well I think a fully responsible adult should be aged 21, driving by 17, drinking/smoking by 21 is the way I see it. People drink to much in my country and take too many risks at the young age of 18, besides the body is still growing by that age as well.

The Void
July 12th, 2011, 12:03 AM
One is considered an official adult on age 21, because that's when one (usually) graduates from college...

groteske
July 12th, 2011, 12:17 AM
At least age 20, and that isn't based solely on my experience. Some of my age 30+ acquaintances are still immature partiers that depend on spouses or family for opinions and survival; conversely, a 17-year-old friend is supporting both his sister and psychologically ill mother, while attending university full-time and holding two jobs.

As mature as I thought I was in my late teens, I didn't really start to grow up until I moved out at 20 (no traditional uni for me). I had to work & budget to support myself, or I'd be screwed. That knocked a lot of immaturity out the window just out of necessity.

Higher education levels and age behoove neither maturity nor a sense of responsibility, so those arguments are invalid.

FreakyLocz14
July 12th, 2011, 03:21 AM
One is considered an official adult on age 21, because that's when one (usually) graduates from college...

There a few problems using college graduation as a basis for adulthood. First, many people do not even go to college either by choice or because they can't afford it. Also, many students move away for college. Being away from your legal guardian(s) for extended periods of time leaves the door open for all kinds of legal messes.

phonastik
July 13th, 2011, 11:50 PM
I agree with the figure of 20. Obviously it varies from person to person, but I think 20 is a better average than 18. I'm 16, nearly 17 (and now the song is in my head, lol) and there are people that I know who drink and smoke and have sex (not that having sex is illegal at 17 here), and even if the 'adulthood' age were raised to 20 rather than 18, they would still be doing those things at 17.

So I know that it's not going to change, especially not here in Australia because WE LOVE BEER.
To be honest, I'm a bit scared about turning 18. I wish I could have longer as a child.
That's why I think 20 is a good age, because there are people like me who aren't ready to be an adult yet.

Melody
July 16th, 2011, 08:03 PM
You need to be legally considered an adult to live on your own in college. If not, it's a legal mess.

It's still a legal mess. Try getting Financial Aid at 21 when your dad is dead and your mom cant be used as a legal parent. (State took all her parental rights away)

But back on topic, I believe that if you can enlist you should be able to drink. I think that in the military the legal drinking age should very well be 18. It wouldn't be hard to write that exception for those who serve the country, or bump up the minimum age to join.

Personally I don't mind that rights come to you in bits and pieces until you're 21. I think that's the right way to do it. Adult at 18, Loss of Minority at 21. That gives you a bit more of a chance to learn the ropes. But I do believe that intoxicating substances like Alcohol and tobacco can wait until you're 21 unless you're fighting for our country.

Snow Phoenix
July 18th, 2011, 10:18 PM
An interesting topic indeed. Many different ways to approach it. I'm not really the type to set definite ideals on these types of issues. I just like looking at things holistically. That’s why instead of making a definite point, I’d like to bring to the table support for the issue in general.

First of all the word "teenagers" may be just as glorified "young adult." What real difference is there between the two? Sure "teenager" refers to the ages that end in teen, but so what? Age is just a number even if a series holds a special relationship. So is being a "teenager" a sole reason to ban certain privileges by itself? I ask this question for the sole reason that it seems like people only want to set the restrictions to 20 ONLY because being under that makes them teenagers. It seems to neglect proper reasoning (such as information on developing brains) and I felt like bring it up for the sake of reasoning ethics. I know some of you have legitimate reasons, some of you just picked it cause it seemed a good fit, and some have their other reasons. I merely mean to bring up as something to sit on.

Second. Alcohol and Smokes ARE health hazards. That's something to consider. It IS an issue of safety. Then when it comes to driving... it really is not a direct hazard. The hazard itself comes from the individuals condition and skill. That is to say that theoretically two individuals possessing the same skill and condition are equally likely to get into a crash. Also it is all based on luck (to a reasonable degree) so a large number of drinks or smokes may or may not prove to be a hazard. Luck as in inherited traits at birth as well as hypothetically drinking just under what would cause you harm.

Third. An individuals own choice, fairness, and the complainers. Most places nowadays (relevant to the general context being discussed) advocate some form of "democracy" and "free-will." In that case they should technically be allowed to do whatever at their own discretion. Even if it breaks the law. They do it at their own risk knowing (sometimes not) that if they get caught, they are at the mercy of the law. That's not to say that I support criminal activity, it's just that honestly there's nothing one can naturally do. Hence "interventions" and "rehab." Those aren't necessarily guaranteed and scaring the crap out of criminals with harsh laws and crack down doesn't necessarily prevent it either. This third point also extends to the people's right to protest (the so called "right way to do things" (something of I which I can't necessarily agree to as well)). If the people find something wrong with the government and they volunteered for "democracy" and "free-will," they have the right to lawfully protest. If they feel as a majority that they should be able to act on these current bans, then so be it.

As far as fairness is concerned. It is truthfully never completely fair unless all receive the same treatment. Although theoretically possibly, realistically speaking complete fairness is impossible. People are born into different conditions and are socialized completely different. Humans are also biased and even in ways that may not be the most apparent. People have their "underdogs," "criminals," "innocents," ect. There are the "poor," the "rich," the debatably "blessed." All of these quite naturally skew the absolute "fairness." For example: A 6 year old child hits a parked car and leaves a dent. The owner of the car sues. The child unlike an adult, does not take the fall. And if the family is poorer, they might receive mercy and pay less than if they had been rich. While not completely “fair” the skewing comes from human emotions and is understandable. The girl is too young to take responsibility and it might be better to spare the parents who could be forced into harsh times. There will always be complainers to a decision of fairness (unless the rare unanimous occurs among a closed group). The man may be upset because the trial wasn’t exactly fair in that the girl did not receive the outcome that the average citizen would have gotten. It’s all a matter of perspective which is another thing that varies and skews “fairness.” So another thing to look at is if setting age restriction limits becomes an issue of choice vs. safety and wither or not fairness becomes an issue.

I feel like I’m forgetting a point that I wanted to discuss. Oh, well. My two cents. As far as I’m concerned, the health risks are the only ones I care about. I myself avoid those substances, but at the same I respect a person’s decision. If you want to drink, do drugs, or smoke. Be my guest.

deoxys121
July 19th, 2011, 04:53 AM
Well, in the United States, it is at age 21 where you are no longer considered a minor in any way. So, 21 is my answer.

Musician of Literature
July 19th, 2011, 06:26 AM
Age is but a number. Everyone develops and matures at different rates. Personally, I think I'd be smart enough to be an adult and a great involved citizen of the US. Some of the other people in my age range... I'm not so sure could handle it...

LightOfTruth
July 21st, 2011, 07:28 AM
Depends where you are in the world, Only the US it is 21 :)

Chiar
July 21st, 2011, 07:32 AM
18. It's like that in my country (along with drinking, driving etc. ages). I can't imagine it the other way.