Already done. This has been studies exhaustively by the insurance industry and the criminal justice system. The age (of perpetrator) at which adult violent crimes most commonly occur is 18, which is the age of adulthood in most of the US. Secondly, it is 19. Then 20 and so forth up till the age of 24 after which there is no discernible pattern of violence to age. This pattern is largely attributed to the missing link between the prefrontal cortex and the limbic system of the brain.
I don't have any problem with alcohol and firearm sales being pushed to 25. If you want to shoot earlier then get private land outside a city, join a police department, join the military, or have a parent or guardian as a co-signer.
> Really? Do you have data to back this up?
Yeah, I think something like 6% of eligible voters aged 18-24 actually vote in presidential elections with a statistically insignificant amount of those voters voting in other elections.
> How are you going to hold those of age below 25 accountable?
Separate the 18-24 population into senior juveniles. Too old to be incarcerated with the violent children and too young to be bonded with the career criminals. Violent offenders absolutely should do time, but if they aren't adults should also have the opportunity to expunge their criminal record so as to allow them to obtain real jobs later.
I'm baffled at how at one side you argue the legal age should be raised, while you suggest youth should join the military or the police. Jobs which include firearms, and a high sense of responsibility. At the same time, you want to remove accountability from said youth? If you take away so many responsibilities from youth, why keep police/military around for them?
I really don't believe 6% (or, for that matter 9% (50% more)) of eligible voters ages 18-24 in my country vote. Perhaps the problem is local or US specific. Also, we don't know the why. I would like to see the US data cross referenced with data from other countries.
I also read that heroin has overtaken gun shootings in cause of dead. Heroin, an illegal drug. We can make services illegal if they require a government license, but goods? Difficult to make illegal.
> Separate the 18-24 population into senior juveniles. Too old to be incarcerated with the violent children and too young to be bonded with the career criminals. Violent offenders absolutely should do time, but if they aren't adults should also have the opportunity to expunge their criminal record so as to allow them to obtain real jobs later.
An interesting point, but nonetheless if you put criminals together you beget criminals. Instead, all the progressive research I've seen is that investing in people integrating in society has a much lower chance to stop recidivism. Although in the US there's little to no interest in such because the US profits from people incarcerated via cheap/free labour.
Accountability is not an earned quality. Accountability is an appointed quality. By raising the age of adulthood you are deferring the age of accountability (in the realm of individual responsibility) to a later age when the individual is better prepared and perhaps more responsible.
As far police and military individual responsibility is less a consideration because you are on a job with extensive training and constant supervision. Additionally, people in these job classes are held to higher legal standards and are punished more harshly for violations of the public trust.
> I would like to see the US data cross referenced with data from other countries.
I suspect a lower percentage of the population in the US votes compared to other equally democratic nations for all age demographics.
> Instead, all the progressive research I've seen
I really think this is more a separate conversation, but certainly there are many various huge opportunities for improvement in how the US manages its criminal population.
Yes, if accountability must be earned we can bind the term adult to someone who finished school system, and who is working. Then we can bind, say, the license to buy alcohol to these factors. If someone loses their job, they lose the ability to buy alcohol. And not merely alcohol. I think we can much further than merely that. The problem is that once we go down the road of it being earned, we are not non-discriminatory enough for that, since we're after all human.
My point is that with your system we have people who are almost adult, almost accountable, yet they're 0% of either. Then boom 25 and suddenly they gotta cope with all that because research on the prefrontal cortex. But that is also the time until you can still change things like personality issues. I'd argue it is better to find a middle road. Give young adults trial runs to prove their responsibility, and give them positive feedback while not ignoring the negative. The role is partly given to parents, and parents are already doing this. Why should we move it all completely to 25 y.o.? Isn't the inexperience going to backfire?
> As far police and military individual responsibility is less a consideration because you are on a job with extensive training and constant supervision. Additionally, people in these job classes are held to higher legal standards and are punished more harshly for violations of the public trust.
I don't believe the chance they get caught is high enough. You say "extensive training and constant supervision" extensive training, yes, I agree; but the same is true for a driver's license. In Germany, a theory part of a drivers license is very, very difficult but the practical part is easy. In The Netherlands, it is the entire opposite.
The USA has not been held accountable for war crimes it committed in Vietnam or Iraq (this problem is not limited to the USA though). Police are getting away with racism, or harassment. Again, not only in the USA, all over the world.
If I were to need help from the police, I'd rather get an older guy than a young one. Why? He's more experienced. Only if it was computer crime would I not want someone >= 50 age because those people are generally terrible when it comes to anything IT related. There's a reason rookie and junior are called rookie and junior.
> I really think this is more a separate conversation
OK, fair enough.
The quote you replied to asked for data. I don't think that meant just your words.
You didn't include alcohol which is already at the age of 21 in USA, but not everywhere else in the world (in my country, it is 18). Yet driving, is age 16 in USA, 18 here as well. My point is that the world is bigger than just a few countries, with different age limits. We should attempt to study the pros and cons of each before drawing to conclusions.
Also, the fact something (e.g. alcohol) is illegal to purchase doesn't mean it cannot be obtained. With driving a car that is going to be more difficult because the car is licensed to a person, and learning driving via obtaining driver's license is important.
On the longer term, driving a car becomes irrelevant though, but I suspect the same is true for tobacco.
You also didn't mention that other hot subject, firearms.
> This wouldn't make any real difference to politics because young people don't vote.
Really? Do you have data to back this up?
I know that, from personal experience, I voted as soon as I became 18.
> open a bank account
I think I was able to open a bank account at age 12. Not that there was a whole lot on it. That's OK, it allows youth to learn how financials work and managing money. What is not OK is allowing youth to get in debt.
The only loans a student (read: 18+) is able to get is via the government, for studies, and they gotta be paid back. I don't see a problem with that system, in the sense that is must be abolished.
I think it is great to have young people work. It teaches them what they want, and not want to do. It stimulates them to start a study, put their heart and soul in it, and finish it. Because who wants to pluck berries for the rest of their life? Only those who never done it before.
> * You could not be tried as an adult in criminal court until age 25. The number of adult violent offenders in prison might decrease as much as 70%.
How are you going to hold those of age below 25 accountable? The justice system exists to find balance between 'damage received', and 'damage done'. If those who cause damage are not going to be held accountable in any way then that does not seem justifiable to me.
However I would agree that a young person should receive, generally, less penalty than an older one. We got a reasonable system for that already: we punishing recidivists more heavy.
My opinion on the whole matter: the term young adult exists for a reason. Part of puberty and being a teen is getting lose from the stigma and lack of responsibilities associated with being a child. We need to let our children taste how it is to be an adult and all of the above are part of exposure. If we treat young adult as if they're children, they are going to remain children and will get a revelation when they reach adult age (in your PoV that should be 25).