Because young people develop different skills incrementally, rather than all at once, Professor Steinberg says, it makes sense to dole out rights and responsibilities incrementally
This struck a chord with me, since I'm someone who tends to desire "bright line" distinctions. Although I believe the example is specious[1], I found it to be valid in principle if offensive in attitude.
The principle which validity I praise is that there may be biological reasons for different aspects of maturation and that these may be several years apart in any given individual. That we may be able to detect this objectively is encouraging, as it may obviate the political answer to the OP's titular question.
The suggestion, however, that rights are "doled" out is startling and offensive. I do hope the "Nanny State" hasn't become axiomatic. I would expect scientists to lean more toward a system based on a notion of natural rights, rather tha on legal technicalities, but I admit a tendency to project.
I do believe that our legal civil rights are merely an approximation of our natural rights. I also believe it's silly to make a knowningly inaccurate, inflexible approximation.
I would propose a variable-age system, perhaps an extension of current emancipated-minor procedures. The trick would be to test for maturity without erecting a procedural barrier, all while involving self-determination.
If Steinberg is right, then there could be several different components to majority, each with a different default age [2], or even the same default age, if majority could be had just for the asking for something like suffrage. Pairing rights with responsibilities might not be obvious, though only until the maximum default age.
Politically, I find the current situation inexcusable. Deciding, after the fact, that a child was an adult, for the purpose punishing a crime, is irresponsible, at best, on the part of adults. What happened to holding parents responsible? It seems to work for dogs and their owners.
[1] I don't believe there are laws against a 19 year old renting a car (statutory references to the contrary are welcome). It is, rather, a private company making an economic decision. "Driving" a tank has more involved prerequisites (training, basic and specialized) and supervision. Back when I was under 25 and traveled for business, I recall there were exceptions in the "fine print" on minimum age for drivers renting on official company business, a context closer to tank operation than a Spring Break rental.
[2] That this would still be a political approximation is less distressing, since its goal would be to ensure an age that is a high enoug percentile of maturation
I would expect scientists to lean more toward a system based on a notion of natural rights, rather tha on legal technicalities, but I admit a tendency to project.
That's curious, I would expect completely the opposite. Are "natural rights" empirically observed? How would you attempt to test or falsify a natural right? Does the concept of a natural right provide any predictive power? How would the existence or non-existence of a natural right change the observed nature of the universe?
The whole concept of "natural rights" sounds suspiciously like moral realism, which is about as anti-scientific as you can get.
There are also exceptions for active military personnel (any age) and off-duty military personnel (21 years at most rental places.) Further, most of the time you can rent the car, but just pay more.
I think the big issue is that the vehicle owner is not liable for damages caused by a tank ;)
This struck a chord with me, since I'm someone who tends to desire "bright line" distinctions. Although I believe the example is specious[1], I found it to be valid in principle if offensive in attitude.
The principle which validity I praise is that there may be biological reasons for different aspects of maturation and that these may be several years apart in any given individual. That we may be able to detect this objectively is encouraging, as it may obviate the political answer to the OP's titular question.
The suggestion, however, that rights are "doled" out is startling and offensive. I do hope the "Nanny State" hasn't become axiomatic. I would expect scientists to lean more toward a system based on a notion of natural rights, rather tha on legal technicalities, but I admit a tendency to project.
I do believe that our legal civil rights are merely an approximation of our natural rights. I also believe it's silly to make a knowningly inaccurate, inflexible approximation.
I would propose a variable-age system, perhaps an extension of current emancipated-minor procedures. The trick would be to test for maturity without erecting a procedural barrier, all while involving self-determination.
If Steinberg is right, then there could be several different components to majority, each with a different default age [2], or even the same default age, if majority could be had just for the asking for something like suffrage. Pairing rights with responsibilities might not be obvious, though only until the maximum default age.
Politically, I find the current situation inexcusable. Deciding, after the fact, that a child was an adult, for the purpose punishing a crime, is irresponsible, at best, on the part of adults. What happened to holding parents responsible? It seems to work for dogs and their owners.
[1] I don't believe there are laws against a 19 year old renting a car (statutory references to the contrary are welcome). It is, rather, a private company making an economic decision. "Driving" a tank has more involved prerequisites (training, basic and specialized) and supervision. Back when I was under 25 and traveled for business, I recall there were exceptions in the "fine print" on minimum age for drivers renting on official company business, a context closer to tank operation than a Spring Break rental.
[2] That this would still be a political approximation is less distressing, since its goal would be to ensure an age that is a high enoug percentile of maturation