At what age should people be considered adults?

[EEEEEEP]

People are often considered adults at the age of 18 as their brains are  mostly developed and can develop right from wrong.

In some countries it is even 19 or 21.   This is because by that time, people have gone through most of the education that they will do in their lifetime. Additionally 18 was the age that people could sign up for the military and were conscripted to be soldiers. 18 was also the age where consensual sex was legal  and so was drinking.

Some do say that age isn't an indicator of maturity but.. there needs to be adult age from the view of a legal standpoint.

What are your thoughts? What should be the age that people are considered adults (and are trialed as adults for crimes)? Why so?

[PhoenixxFire]

I feel like 18 is a good age to legally be considered an adult as that is when most people finish high school. However I also feel like their should be provision for 16/17 year olds to have the full legal rights/responsibilities as an adult is they need to eg. Are moving away from home to do an apprenticeship.

I don't think anyone under 18 should be tried as an adult - There's a reason kids punishments are different, their brains are not fully developed yet.

I don't think anyone under say 25 or 30 should be sentenced to life in prison because that's like saying their entire life is now over. The system as it currently is is bad and it needs to focus on rehabilitation not locking kids up for life.

[Sine]

I feel like 18 is a good age to legally be considered an adult as that is when most people finish high school. However I also feel like their should be provision for 16/17 year olds to have the full legal rights/responsibilities as an adult is they need to eg. Are moving away from home to do an apprenticeship.

I don't think anyone under 18 should be tried as an adult - There's a reason kids punishments are different, their brains are not fully developed yet.

I don't think anyone under say 25 or 30 should be sentenced to life in prison because that's like saying their entire life is now over. The system as it currently is is bad and it needs to focus on rehabilitation not locking kids up for life.

why do you think people who are 16/17 should have "full legal rights/responsibilities" but not be tried as an adult?  and later on you say "not locking kids up for life", reffering to people under 25/30 so basically saying people who are 24/29 as kids?  seems kinda contradictory imho

sorry if it sounds like i'm nitpicking everything

I think 18 is fine from a legal standpoint but socially it's different for everyone. As for people under 18 being tried as adults I think it's fair as long as it's an "adult crime" - definition is obviously gonna vary between everyone.

As for life imprisonment I think it's ok since it's given out for extreme crimes like premeditated murder.

[spectroscopy]

I reckon it should be 16 for indictable offences/felonies and 21 for summary offences/misdemeanors.

at 16 years old you are fully aware of the severity of your actions if you break into someones house, beat the shit out of them, and steal their car LOL  but i think the propensity to do little shit like vandalism/petty theft/smoking weed is pretty similiar from ages 16-21 and I think as a uni student/apprentice/high school grad who lives at home, doing things like that at that age shouldn't fuck up your whole life forever because you are still young and not yet settled i guess. so there probably should be a kid period 0-15, young adult 16-21, and adult 21+  category. after spending alot of time in america where alot of things are 21+ I do understand where they come from with that age being the barrier to true adulthood, the difference between a 17 year old and a 19 year old is nothing compared to the difference between a 15 year old and 17 year old. from an australian perspective 18 seems fine to us because at 18 you can smoke drink and gamble and it has always been that way, but after studying over there and seeing their point of view I totally get why from an an objective point of view or the pov of a 40 year old, why 21 is a better age to allow people to smoke drink gamble etc. I knew alot of kids who turned 18 in year 12 and would just go to the pub every weekend smoking and drinking beer just because they could even though in retrospect they really shouldn'tve been allowed to at that point in their life based on their maturity level. but i really think once you get to 20 21 you are alot more well adjusted and not going to childishly abuse new privileges. i dunno i am kinda sleep deprived atm and gonna go to sleep goodnight everyone

[PhoenixxFire]

why do you think people who are 16/17 should have "full legal rights/responsibilities" but not be tried as an adult?  and later on you say "not locking kids up for life", reffering to people under 25/30 so basically saying people who are 24/29 as kids?  seems kinda contradictory imho

This is because I don't agree with the current jail system, locking people up rarely works and I think there are better ways to stop reoffending. So when I say full legal rights/responsibilities I mean the same as anyone else (eg who is 18) but I don't think those 18 year olds should be tried as adults either because their brains have not fully developed at that point.

[Yertle the Turtle]

I feel like there are several facets to this issue. I personally think that there are some things that require a lower age limit, such as criminal activity and imprisonment, as by the age of 16 people have a pretty well developed moral system in general. On the other hand, things such as alcohol and drugs would probably be better to be introduced as an option later in life, since by the early twenties, there is likely to be more experienced decision making going on.