[glenra]

> In addition, the human brain doesn't fully develop until around 25, so your judgment at 16 is fundamentally flawed.

Even if the premise is true, that seems an unreasonable conclusion. On what possible basis could one describe the judgement of a pre-25 brain as "fundamentally flawed"? What makes you consider an old, decrepit, no-longer-developing brain optimal? "Finished growing" doesn't mean "best", it just means "finished growing".

Jewish law considers a man "an adult" at 13, a woman "an adult" at 12. 16-year-olds are perfectly capable of adult behavior, regardless of the degree to which we choose to coddle them in the modern era.

When we treat kids as rational beings capable of mature reasoning, they are more likely to act as such.

[learc83]

Specifically the undeveloped part of the brain, is believed to be the part that evaluates risk. Meaning that 16 year olds are less likely to account accurately for the consequences of their behavior.

There are advantages to this for society and for the individual teenager. But there are disadvantages as well--they are more likely to commit crime, are easier to convince to go off to a foreign land and fight in a war, and take unnecessary risks when driving.

The inability of teenagers to fully comprehend the risks and consequences of their actions leads me to label their judgment "fundamentally flawed."

>When we treat kids as rational beings capable of mature reasoning, they are more likely to act as such.

I agree to an extent. But there are many circumstances where this isn't the case.

In a situation where the consequences of failure won't destroy the life of a teenager and those around him, sure treat him (or her) like an adult. But there are times when parents have to step in, exercise their authority, and protect them (and those around them) from themselves.

[glenra]

> Specifically the undeveloped part of the brain, is believed to be the part that evaluates risk. Meaning that 16 year olds are less likely to account accurately for the consequences of their behavior.

Again, you seem to be assuming that when the brain STOPS developing, it does so because it has achieved perfection. It is pretty easy to support the view that adults are far TOO risk-averse, too unwilling to let teens take chances that would benefit them. To claim adults account "accurately" is going a bridge too far. Adults account for risk "differently" and do so in a way that other adults are likely to agree with, but that doesn't make it more "accurate".

[JoeAltmaier]

I think experience pretty much explains it. A 16-year-old hasn't learned yet to judge when its safe to turn left across the highway - is the truck too close? is it going too fast?

Witness ANYBODY learning a new computer game. We all have to play a while to learn the controls on that star fighter.

Teenagers are just newbies to life. Nothing to do with neurology.