Do you want nine year old running heavy machinery? What about 12 year olds? How about 50 years olds?
My point is we do NOT want young people to operate heavy dangerous machinery due to the fact they are NOT fully grown and thus have complete knowledge what they can do and not do with their bodies (i.e. remember you "awkward teen years" right after your growth spurt? You were almost as tall as you will be as a full adult, but still learning how to use the new heights and weight.
Most teens have their growth spurt before they turn 18 (every so often someone does not, and you see a large growth between 18 and 21, a midshipmen at the Naval Academy did that several years ago, was within height limits of the US navy when he entered the Naval Academy, but by the time he graduated he was to tall for any subs or ships, the Navy ended up discharging him after transferring him to the army Reserves who is less picky on height.
But, as I said above, such a situation is rare. Most people have almost reached they full height by the time their turn 18 (Through some growth continues at a much reduced rate in most people till about age 21). In many ways ancient people accepted these ages as ages of adulthood (along with age 12 and 14 for certain activities, for example in most societies you could marry at 12, including under English Common Law and Roman Civil Law, you could consent to sex outside of marriage at 12 under English Common Law).
While, under English Common Law and most other ancient laws you could marry at age 12, you stayed under the care control and supervision of your parents till you turn 21 OR they released you from their care, control and supervision (Under Roman law, if you were male, you stayed under the Care, Control and Supervision of your father till his death, no matter how old you were. If you were female the same rule applied, even after marriage, but at your father's death you came under care control and supervision of your oldest male relative, i.e brother or adult son).
I bring this up to show that the difficult decision as to when someone is an adult has been with us for at least 2000 years and some bible stories indicate at least 6000 years. What one can do has changed over time. For example prior to September 1918, you had to be over 21 to enlist in the US Army without your parent's permission (And then had to be over 21 to serve overseas) UNLESS you were an emancipated minor (and the burden was on the minor to show emancipation NOT the Army) In September 1918, the Draft adopted in 1917 was changed from males over age 21 to males over age 18 (It appears no males DRAFTED after September 1918 served overseas). Now the WWII Draft started in 1941 with 18 as the youngest age one could enlist (and the old rule that one had to be over 21 to serve overseas was also dismissed, it had been suspended in 1917 but reinstated after the end of WWI).
Competency for purposes of testimony and other issues was age 14 under the Common Law, based on the fact most people entered the work force around age 14, but mostly doing various side jobs related to work being done by adults (In certain cases younger children were employed, for example on Naval Ships "Powder Monkeys" could be as young as age 8 and up to age 12, for the steps from the powder room to the guns were built NOT for adults but such young pre-teens (I would say males, for that was the official line, but at that age, men have NOT yet gain the muscles they will get in adolescents so young girls could do the job as while as young boys). I wish I could say such Powder Monkeys were the exceptions to the rule, but they were not. The industrial looms of the 1700s and 1800s also used such pre teens.
After saying the above, those pre teens were almost always with their parents, or under the care control and supervision of someone (The Captain of the Ship, the owner of the Loom etc). It is only as a person turn about 14 that they could break from such "Care, Control and Supervision" and go on their own (and remember, under the Common Law, only with permission of the person who had "Care, Control and Supervision" over them).
After a lot of "adjustments" over the last 200 years, many of the old Common Law Age practices are slowly coming back for their work. The Chief is the return to age 18 for most purposes of being an adult but keeping some parts at 21 (and age 14 for others). The big concern has been the abuse done to pre-teens in the early industrial era and the just as bad conditions 14-18 years old worked, for they were NOT yet adults.
Thus starting in the late 1800s the states started to impose regulations as to employment of teenagers. The Federal Government joined in this movement with the New Deal. Both the State and Federal Government also wanted to improve the education level of the people of the US, and that could only be done if teenagers stayed in School. Thus from the late 1800s onward various efforts were made to keep Children in School. This was fairly successful. For example the majority of men in the US Army in WWI were NOT high school graduates, but the Majority of men in the US Army in WWII were high school graduates.
Given the above, the States and the Federal Government has tried to come up with ages that cover most situations. AS I point out above, we have seen a slow return to most of the age restrictions of the Common Law that had been abolished starting in the late 1700s for the restrictions interfered with industrialization (The policy of the time was Government was to encourage industry NOT protect people). With a return to a Government policy of protecting people (starting about 1900 but only being generally accepted in the 1930s), efforts were made at drawing lines as to when a person could do certain types of work. Over time, it became more and more clear the old common law rules, having been based on experience not logic, actually worked. Thus a return to 18 as the general age one could enter the work force without restrictions as to the type of work one can do, but restrictions below that age (With 21 being retained for work in certain jobs, mostly related to alcohol).
Yes, 18 is a arbitrary age, but it is one based on experience and one that works. Younger ages have been tried and failed when compared to age 18. In many ways 21 would be a better age, but given most people want to go to Collage at age 18, and Collages do NOT want to have to deal with parents, the push has been since the 1960s to use 18 not 21 (and this push from Collages appear to be the main reason 18 was accepted for voting NOT that people could be drafted at 18, Collages saw the vote as the first step in dropping the age of consent from 21 to 18 and thus cut out parents from being a factor, other then as a source of money, when it came to collage. The Draft and the Vote was just an excuse).
Comment on why 18 is used as the cut off. Some age has to be used and except for age 21, all have more serious problems then using age 18.
= new reply since forum marked as read
