Talk:Minor (law)

Australia

It may seem weird to have just Australia listed for specific info, but I'm going to be adding countries as I find information, so please don't delete. DanB DanD 00:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The UK entry certainly needs more info - the age of consent is 16, for instance. Let alone driving licenses, smoking, buying fireworks, and so on. User:The Yeti 13:30, 22 November 2006

Age of consent does not seem to be relevant to the age of majority, although you wouldn't expect to see much of a large gap between them seeing as how age of majority designates who votes, and people tend to want people near their own age to be able to have sex. Sexual consent, driving, smoking, fireworks, all seem to be distinct issues at which it is deemed permissible to designate different ages from 'majority' which I believe only refers to voting and certain rights. In some cases, rights are even restricted from adults, such as the drinking age being higher than the voting age (18/21). This has not been overthrown because just as people see fit to give sexual rights to minors without the ability to vote, they see fit to restrict them from their own. Although I would generally take this to mean that older adults (those 21+) simply ounumber younger adults (18-20). Tyciol (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking through this page and a sentence jumped out at me as a bit dodgy: "The rights and status of minors in many western countries has been compared to the state of women and racial minorities before these groups achieved equal rights." There's no source, and it sounds to me like it's simply opinion. Disgruntled teenager? If there's no objections I'll change it in a while. I'm new to editing wikipedia, so I'm hesitant to jump right in. 60.228.53.86 23:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would take offense at the use of a phrase like 'disgruntled teenager' which is outright ageism and not a reason to be criticizing source material of Wikipedia contributors. This said, if it is unsourced, I can see how it could be considered not relevant enough to the article to be mentioned. Rather than say ambiguous things like 'it has been compared' it would be more valuable to simply compare them within the article by stating any true similarities between the two, which there are. For example: blacks, women and teenagers are all human beings with the ability to speak, write, hold an opinion, and who at some point in time did not possess the ability to vote. In some countries (not western), women still do not, and in even developed nations, many teenagers also still do not. It is a valid comparison, but would need to be addressed directly (if it is deemed relevant enough to the article) rather than to introduce 'it has been compared'. By whom? Why do they matter? What matters is relevancy, not who-says. This said, 'it has been compared' is not an opinion. Comparisons are not opinions, they are analogies. A comparison can be correct or incorrect. Whether you believe a comparison is or isn't valid would be opinion. Tyciol (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Property rights

Well, what about those? Can minors own property? Seems like parents (and in some cases even teachers) can just take property from minors as they like. User:75.73.48.43 01:58, 31 January 2007

That would be a good issue to introduce into the article. Generally, I would think teacher's ability to do this is an assumed transference of power from parents who place their children into the teacher's care. That said, I have never heard of a teacher actually snatching something away from a children, generally they ask for it to be handed over voluntarily. If they do not comply, I would think rather than taking it a teacher would contact the principal to deal with the situation, who can contact parents. In the end, for fear of consequence (expulsion) there is generally compliance with such requests so long as the security of the property is verified and it is returned at the end of the school day. Tyciol (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US inconsistancy

The part on the US seems internally inconsistent. The top says that the age of consent is 18 or 21, while it says uniformly 18 below. The "age of majority" on that page is all over the board. Someone who has information on this should take a look. SandwichSandwich 14:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds pretty strange, I've only ever seen 21 for the ages for drinking alchohol in the US. Tyciol (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statutory Rape

Would you really say that this is a restriction imposed on minors? Seems more like a restriction posed on those who would like to have sex with them... -Daniel C. Boyer 16:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a restriction placed upon both parties, it's not really an if/else situation. Primarily the restriction is on minors since they can't have sex period, whereas adults still have potential sexual partners amongst other adults, so it is only a partial restriction of availabilities. To those who have preferences correlating with minors it seems like a larger restriction to them though. Tyciol (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]