In 2002 there were about 250 murders committed by a juvenile.
http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/chapter3.pdf
The number of juveniles in the US at that time was about 73,000,000
http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.gov/ojstatbb/nr2006/downloads/chapter1.pdf
That gives us .0003% of the juvenile population that commits murders. Now, if only .0003% of the population wanted to drive, do you really think we'd have an age limit? At the very least, it would be just as practical to determine who possess the ability to drive on a case by case basis.
Since we already give a test to determine ability, I don't see the point of giving the stats of murders committed by juveniles. Right now 100% of people who get their licenses are tested before they receive their license. 100% > .0003%.
What is the value of the age limit for taking that test, when a test is
already in place to determine ability? What prima facie
assumption must be in place for such an age-based restriction to be in place? Because it is patently obvious that the restriction is
not based on their individual
ability to drive (which
can be tested, and
is tested in each and every case prior to getting a drivers license), only assumptions we make about the abilities of the group as a whole.
Opening up the ability to take the test to lower age groups
only makes it so that those who
do have the ability, but fail to meet the current age requirements, can still receive their licenses based on ability.
How interesting. So the law treats kids that are independently determined to be of proper maturity to consume alcohol differently. Strange, that. Gosh it sounds like a good idea. We should set up our court system like that!
No, the law assumes that
parents are making the decision, and thus the decision is competently made. The responsibility is entirely on the parents, not the child. The exceptions are not based on the "proper maturity" of the child, but the decisions of the parents.
The parents are
assumed to be mature enough and responsible enough to make those decisions. The child, however, is not. That's why the
parent has the right to
furnish the alcohol to their child, but the child does not have a right to
procure the alcohol.
This assumption is based
only on age.
Ironically, the law also states that a
spouse who is of age can make that decision, but it does
not provide an exception to underage people who are married to make the decision for themselves.
i.e. a 20 year old who is married and has kids is
still deemed by law to not have the maturity and responsibility to make that determination for themselves. Only their of age spouse and/or parents can make that decision for them.
I see. So if competency were present, presumably you would have no problem with a child being tried as an adult?
I support legal consistency in
both directions. If exceptions are made in
one direction, they
must be made in the other. I said as much in my first post (granted, that was a long way back in the thread).
So, if someone is determined to be legally competent to drink/drive/smoke/etc, they should
always be tried as an adult in any criminal case.
If we make exceptions, they should be possible in both directions. If we refuse to make an exception in one direction (let's say drinking age), then we must consistently refuse to make exceptions in the other direction (criminal trials).
So, if competency
is determined to be present, I would support all of the following:
1. Legal ability to sleep with whomever the child chooses. If the kid is 11 and they are deemed competent, they can **** a 35 year old if they choose without the 35-year-old facing legal ramifications.
2. Legal ability to procure and consume alcohol without supervision. If the kid is 11 and they are deemed competent, they can booze it up whenever and wherever they choose.
3. Legal ability to vote. They are deemed competent, and thus they deserve full government representation.
4. Legal ability to take the drivers test and, should they pass said test, receive a license. If this means 8-year-old drivers, so be it.
5. Legally being tried as an adult should they commit a crime.
6. Legal ability to perform/attempt any other age-based restriction such as entering into a contract, get married, join the military, get a job in a coal mine, whatever.
The thing is, all of these things could
only be done if the determination was made
prior to the act in question. If a person is caught drinking underage, and has not had the determination of competency in place
prior to that alcohol consumption, they should be treated as underage drinkers, even if later the determination of competency is made.
Conversely, if they kill someone
before the determination is made, they should
not be tried as an adult if a
later determination is made. Just as the determination being made after-the-fact would not
alleviate the punishment for the crime for underage drinking, such a determination could not be made after-the-fact for the express purposes of
exacerbating the punishment for other crimes.
My stance is such a determination must be made
prior to the actions engaged in by the individual in order to accurately judge said actions as those of an adult. This prevents abuses from both directions.
But whenever such determinations
are made prior to the action the individual engages in, I would absolutely oppose trying such a person as anything
but an adult, regardless of their age. In such cases, the determination of competency trumps any desire to protect the child from his or herself.