[InclinedPlane]

Stop. Rewind.

You are calling a 17 year old person a "child". This is wrong, and perfectly in keeping with the trend of failing to raise children into mature adults.

17 year olds will be able to vote on their next birthday. They can hold jobs, they can drive cars, they can fly planes, they can even serve in the armed forces with their parents' permission. 17 year olds fought in the battle of Iwo Jima.

Calling this person a child diminishes them, and takes away their capacity for agency and responsibility. A big part of being a healthy, functional adult in society is responsibility. You can nurture them within a loving community all you want but if you protect them entirely from the consequences of their actions they will never become anything more than children.

[yelsgib]

Stop. Fast-forward.

First of all, you're picking on a very small point. The fact that I referred to this guy/kid/whatever as a "child" isn't really crucial to my argument except perhaps in a pretty indirect/connotative manner.

Second of all, to me, this kid is a child. I know some 30+ year old grown-ass men and women who are children. I was remarking on his (apparent) lack of maturity and his position within the community (still living with parents, pulling [admittedly extreme] "pranks", not living with the consequences of his actions).

I agree that to be an adult you need responsibility and that to get there you must increasingly suffer the consequences of your actions. My point (which you have avoided responding to entirely) centers on the fact that, in the US and the UK, turning ANYONE (child or adult) over to the "authorities" is not any sort of reasonable or useful consequence and, what's more, that it is disturbing to me that this particular idea of "punishment" or "consequences" or "justice" or whatever seems to continue to penetrate the public consciousness.

[anonymous]

Just because he's 17 doesn't mean he has grown up. He obviously hasn't and treating him like a grown-up and expecting him to take responsibility when he obviously hasn't reached that part of his mental development would be very detrimental. That's why the article writer made sure to impress upon his parents that the boy needs counselling - to work through and correct whatever mental/behavioural issues he has.

That argument of course only holds if your goal is utilitarian with regards to the well-being of society as a whole and that family in particular. If you just seek to satisfy your inner craving for "justice", by all means - call the cops, destroy his life, create another criminal and drug user and watch him and his parents lose any hope of normal life, while you laugh and twirl your moustache from atop the moral high tower.

[InclinedPlane]

If it would be detrimental to him to "grow up" then will it not be detrimental to society to put him out in a world where he could do harm to others? Especially given that he already has a history of doing exactly that?

If the premise here is that this man-child is too immature to take on the responsibilities of adult society (such as the right to own firearms, the right to drive automobiles, the right to drink alcohol, etc.), that he is in some way developmentally disabled, then should he not be kept away from society and denied the ability to hurt others?

You are setting up a false dichotomy here. You are saying that the choice is either that this person be sheltered by a nurturing and loving community who protects him from the consequences of his actions and if not then his life will be ruined utterly. He needs to face the consequences of his actions. He needs to learn that it is necessary to abide by just laws in order to live in society and to fail to do so will result in very serious consequences. If he cannot accept any responsibility then he has no place in civil society.

What are the possible consequences of someone being sheltered from the consequences of their vile, hateful, violent acts? That person can become mentally and emotionally twisted and their hatred and lust for wanton destruction can grow. And this can occur even within the sheltering arms of a loving community. And then the hurt they cause others and the irreparable damage they do to themselves becomes even greater until they become a monster. A rapist, a serial killer, or merely an outcast who cannot mesh with society.

This is not about moral high towers, this is about ensuring that society does not become burdened with so-called adults who have never faced true responsibility and are incapable of functioning properly within society.

[engtech]

"then should he not be kept away from society and denied the ability to hurt others?"

How long do you think he should be kept away from society?

His actions don't justify a life sentence or the death penalty, so he's going to be part of society at some point.

Is taking him out of society going to make him a better person? No.

The best way to rehabilitate someone is for them to have something to lose.

If this 17yo had a wife/child of his own then it is far less likely that he would have done this harassment.

[bloaf]

I think it is highly unlikely that any of his actions would result in any significant jail time. Community service, a fine, and/or some sort of probation are all more likely.

I had a childhood friend who got in with a bad crowd in high school. At some point, when he was about 17, he was caught illegally entering a business at night. His parents refused to go pick him up from the police station, so he had to spend the night and most of the next day in a cell. I don't believe his ultimate punishment involved any jail time.

I respect his parent's decision. That sort of action teaches a troublesome kid that there are real consequences for breaking laws beyond just upset parents. While a criminal record might make it harder for him to get a job in the future, it certainly doesn't make it impossible. I also suspect it is better than letting a kid think that other people will protect him and he can get away with whatever he wants.

[InclinedPlane]

A criminal record for a misdemeanor as a minor can be expunged fairly easily.

[InclinedPlane]

I'm suggesting no such thing. I'm saying that if someone thinks that this person should be sheltered entirely from the consequences of his actions then it is similarly logical to shelter society from his cruelty. If you'll notice I haven't actually suggested a course of action for dealing with him, I've only suggested that he needs to experience consequences for his hateful and violent attacks.

[engtech]

The 17 yo might not be a child, but he is immature. His actions were not the actions of a mature individual.

Knowing the 17 yo, and knowing his family means the article author was able to make a judgement call about how seriously he takes the threats against his family and himself now that the veil of anonymity is revealed.

If he was still worried about the threats being enacted after the 17 yo was reveal then I'm sure he would have involved authorities.

Actions have consequences, and while I agree that what the 17 yo did needs to have consequences, by invoking the authorities the author could change this from an act that has a definite conclusion to something that is ongoing (if only on his conscience) when he hears stories about this kid's life 5, 10 and 20 years from now.

To let go of retribution and have a dark part of your life concluded and move on is sometimes a better outcome than having to drag something out to get justice.

[beseku]

When I think back to the decisions I made as a 17 year old (and an 18, 19, 20 ... year old) I think it is perfectly valid to call a 17 year old a child.

At that age I would guess a large proportion can barely cook for themselves, have never lived alone, probably never paid a bill or shopped at supermarkets.

[gaius]

There is a strong case in the modern world for upping the age of maturity to say, 25.

[InclinedPlane]

How will that help? You don't solve the problem of people being immature even into adulthood by delaying the official onset of adulthood yet more. You solve it by treating teenagers as adults in training. Which used to be the case until very recently. Now we avoid giving responsibility to teens, we treat high school like day care or a prison, and we wonder why our "kids" don't magically acquire maturity when they turn 18, or 21, or 25, or 30.

Maturity and responsibility are skills that must be taught. And they cannot be taught at a distance, they must be taught live, with the real world, because it is only through learning that actions have consequences, sometimes serious ones, that maturity is acquired.

[engtech]

I think the answer isn't so much giving people consequences as giving them responsibility.

It's ridiculous that some kids get their post secondary education degree without ever having held a job (of any kind).

I find it amazing that teens walk around with $200-$2000 worth of electronics that their parents paid for them with no thought to their value because they didn't pay for it, and they know they'll be replaced if they whine enough.

[btilly]

Both points are accurate.

The case for upping the age of maturity to 25 is that there is solid brain science suggesting that that is how old we are when our brain finishes developing the ability to make mature decisions. See http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familylife/tech_assistance/etraining/... for that.

However you're absolutely right that children who are never given responsibility never develop their ability to take responsibility.

[chris_wot]

After reviewing the conduct of a number of 25 year olds, I find this comment somewhat amusing.

I wouldn't say that increasing it to the age of 40 would be crossing the maturity threshold, either.

[philwelch]

Yes, let's just keep infantilizing and disenfranchising young people for more and more of their lives, that's sure to work.

The main reason teen rebellion and delinquency are issues in the first place is because young people are already held back for too long.

[S4M]

Totally agree. You see things from a different perspective when you start having responsibilities and duties, like having to pay for your rent, having to cook and do the cleaning yourself, and so on...

[bloaf]

"...the tough thing about adulthood is that it starts before you even know it starts, when you're already a dozen decisions into it. But what you need to know, Todd, no Lifeguard is watching anymore. You're on your own. You're your own man, and the decisions you make now are yours and yours alone from here until the end. "

An arbitrary age of maturity has nothing to do with actual (as opposed to legal) adulthood or responsibility. The fact is that "kids" at the age of 17 and 18 are already making decisions that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Making the legal age later will certainly not help these people realize that the decisions they are making are important or that they need to take responsibility for themselves.

[junto]

I often find the idea of "maturity" an interesting concept. We have a fairly fixed average lifetime expectancy, which can vary by a couple of years depending on where you live (on average). I think the global average is 68 years old for both sexes.

The western world has an fairly fixed period of "maturing" into adulthood, which is usually achieved when the individual reaches 18 years old. Most countries then offer the vote and other "adult" related perks and responsibilities. Meanwhile, adults are living longer and social and health support costs for those people in retirement is increasing and this burden falls on the working population.

Historically humans have matured before 18 years old. This shift has happened over the last two centuries (western world). However, let's not forget that in many parts of the world, children start work and start families at a much younger age and it is socially acceptable within their own societies. These are concepts that we in the western world find (now) quite bizarre, but during the (British) industrial revolution, children (and we had a lot of them) helped to power the revolution, working in mines and factories. These children had children younger and further increased the population at a more rapid growth rate. We now look on this with distaste, disgust and a large degree of pity, but at the time I doubt it was viewed as so.

I would go further and state that today we see this as slavery, whilst back then they saw it as necessity. This necessity still exists around the world, and even though there is a huge drive in the western world to boycott companies in the third and second world who use child labor, it is an important source of income for their families living in poverty. Importantly and all to often forgotten, we are too blinded by our indignation to see otherwise. I'm not saying that this is right, merely making an observation.

Meanwhile our welfare states are collapsing and we have few options. We have to reduce our social support costs or see our support systems collapse. Alternatively we could import human resource from abroad to pay the taxes to support welfare. Importing labor is not without its own challenges, but has helped to build countries like the United States into global powerhouses.

Without a doubt, we need to extend people's working lives (i.e. later retirement), which is for many countries, especially in Europe, the first step on this path. The "lord taketh and the lord taketh away", but woe betide the state that tries to take anything away from its citizens. Countries like France are being brought to their knees by this welfare burden. The people protest in their millions as they see banks profit and get richer, but nothing will change, except for the fact that eventually, the French will have to accept later retirement and higher taxes.

Thus, the question I put to you is this: Do our children really need 18 years to mature, or is our system taking 18 years to mature them? Are we able to improve the system so that we can increase the number of workers in the system from the bottom up, rather than the top down?

We could radically change the way (and speed) in which we educate our children (and have more of them) to help offset the welfare gap from the bottom up. I haven't ever heard this idea proposed and the devil's advocate in me wants to question why not?

I have children and I want the best for them. On one hand I want them to enjoy their "extended" childhood, but I also want them not to suffer in poverty when they get older. The pragmatist in me thinks that there is little option other than consider extending the worker's life from both sides.

To summarize, the baby boomers fucked us and we and our children just have to live with the consequences.

[Tichy]

"Without a doubt, we need to extend people's working lives (i.e. later retirement)"

How is this a given? Increased efficiency might counteract demographics. Hundred years ago a lot more farmers where needed to feed the same amount of people than today. If your phone can do your medical checkup, lots of medical aid workers can perhaps be freed to do other stuff.

I worry that we are being brainwashed on a constant basis by a rich elite to believe the "we have to work harder and longer" dogma. It doesn't make that much sense, given that we are a lot more technologically advanced than 50 years ago. Granted, the population has grown, too. All I want to say that I wouldn't take your claim at face value.

As for working children: sure, children can work. Does that mean they are adults? I think in our times it basically means being allowed to vote and make responsible decisions. You can still work in a coal mine following orders without being able to make responsible decisions.

Obviously people will do what they need to survive, but while we can, we should probably try to attain to a higher standard.

Even for the child laborers in India it is not a given that things have to be what they are. Yes, the current system makes it so - doesn't imply that there couldn't be another system. Paying their parents more might be a start.

[junto]

I guess that is my opinion, as I personally see this as the most attractive option to solve the deficit. You can of course raise taxes, but that decreases fluidity. Decreased fluidity dampens growth, etc..

[Tichy]

What deficit?

[bigiain]

"You are calling a 17 year old person a "child". This is wrong, and perfectly in keeping with the trend of failing to raise children into mature adults."

I see it slightly more cynically - in my opinion, either the 17 year old is "child" so is not held responsible and his parents are, or he is not a child and is held responsible. I don't accept the assumption that _nobody_ is responsible for a badly brought up child. The guy and his wife were put through something a lot closer to "terrorism" than anything many detainees at Guantanamo ever managed. If the kid had been Arabian, and hs parents had knowingly or unknowingly provided training and equipment that allowd the kid to do what he did - how differently do you suppose this story would have played out?

[jopt]

Let's not pretend there's reason or justice in how the US treats those people. That's part of a larger conflict, and has little value as an example of individual responsibility.

[Destroyer661]

17 year olds may be able to do all of those things, however we know that the average male's forebrain doesn't fully develop until much later, as much as 8 years later. Some males aged 25 still have not developed to the point of advanced reasoning. Reasoning like being able to see the consequences and harm done by stunts such as sending threats like this. It's certainly not enough to dismiss this and say "he's 17, he's not a child anymore".

[scythe]

Who cares about a "fully developed" brain, if there is even such a thing? Human beings at any age are largely irresponsible and irrational and most people never move beyond this. Yet I know that the vast majority of 17-year-olds I have encountered do not mail boxes of ashes to Jews, or anything of the sort. That his brain is not totally "developed" absolves nothing. Should a person with an IQ of 100 serve less time than a person with an IQ of 140, because the latter is more "capable of rationality", or whatever other quality you want to ascribe to the mind? At some point, certainly short after the reasonable age of entry into the working world (probably sixteen) people need to be expected to act decently. Sure, I'm in favor of rehabilitation -- punishment is a revenge-instinct and waste of resources -- but we should do ourselves and these people the service of being honest about what they are: criminals.

[shurane]

Whoa, can I get a citation for this?

That sounds so weird. This is particularly males? Males with healthy diets and lifestyles, ones with terrible diets and bad lifestyles, or across the board?

[infinite8s]

Especially since the average male lifespan was around 35 years up until a few millenia ago. Are you saying that most males died before they reached maturity?

[barking]

AFAIK 'average male lifespan was around 35 years' is based on estimates that includes all males including the relatively large percentage who never survived childhood