Why is the age of consent typically younger than the age of majority in many countries? I've always been puzzled at many countries allow teenagers to have sex with each other at 14-15 years old at the youngest but still forbid them from consuming intoxicants until they are 18 or 21. Why do they have some bodily rights but not others?
There is and never has been a single “age of majority” The law treats people of different ages differently for a wide variety of reasons. Just a small sample of typical limits (jurisdictions vary): you must be 4 to go to school you must be 10 to be criminally responsible you must be 11 or 13 to get a job in the australian-capital-territory but there is no specific age limit in new-south-wales you must be 15 to attend an M-rated movie alone (your rating system may differ) you must be 16 to get a learner driver permit and 17 to get a provisional licence you must be 18 to attend an R-rated movie at all you must be 14-17 years old to have sex depending on the age and relationship with your partner. you must be 16 to 21 to buy and consume alcohol (jurisdictions vary a lot on this) you must be 18 to marry without the consent of the court but can be as young as 16 with that consent you must be 18 to legally take and post sexually explicit pictures of yourself you must be 18 to get a tattoo you must be 18 to join the defence force you must be 18 to vote you must be 35 to stand for President of the united-states So tell me, when is the age of majority. There isn’t one - there is simply a long period where an individual is granted progressively more control and responsibility over their life. Now, as to why some things happen at particular ages, that’s a political question, not a legal one.
Isn't anyone 18 or older guaranteed full constitutional rights? No. How can someone between 18 and 21 be denied the right to own a gun based on age? The Second Amendment authorizes reasonable regulation of the right to own a gun (it contemplates a &quot;well-regulated&quot; militia). Nothing in the U.S. Constitution states that age 18 is the age of majority for all purposes. The U.S. Constitution merely states that the right to vote in a federal election cannot be denied on the basis of an age older than age eighteen. (A U.S. state could let 14 year olds vote if it wanted to do so.) But, many legal rights are limited to persons aged twenty-one or older (e.g. drinking, tobacco smoking, serving as an executor of a decedent's estate, etc.), or to some other age (e.g., age discrimination in employment laws start at age 40, legal discrimination for senior citizen oriented housing starts at age 55, eligibility to run for the U.S. House starts at age 25, for the U.S. Senate at age 30, and for the Presidency at age 35.) Historically, until the Vietnam War, the age of majority for most (but not all) purposes in the United States was twenty-one years of age. A majority of U.S. courts that have considered the issue have found that an age twenty-one restriction on the right to bear some or all arms is a reasonable regulation of the Second Amendment right that is constitutionally permitted, although there is a split of authority and one or two cases have reached the opposite conclusion.
So far as I can see, no US law required an airline to demand written parental consent for a passenger aged 17 in 2004, nor does any law requires such consent now. A passport could probably have been required. Minors in general may make and enforce contracts, including those for purchase of travel services. Parental consent is only required for a few specific activities, and air travel does not seem to be one. The question asks &quot;Was I liable at 17 or 18...?&quot; Liable for what? There is no liability unless there is wrongdoing or negligence or at least harm to someone. I don't see what there was to be liable for here, so there is no reason to try to determine who was liable. Had a law been violated, it would make sense to ask who was criminally responsible, but apparently none was. If no one was harmed there is no civil liability. I am not clear why the OP thinks there was a legal problem. Nothing in the question indicates that there would have been.
No. The constitution protects the right of consenting adults to have sex in private &quot;without the intervention of the government.&quot; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 578 (U.S. 2003).
We cannot stipulate that a 6 year old does not understand the concepts of life / death / murder / assault, but that stipulation might be baked into the laws of the jurisdiction. In Washington, a child under age 8 is statutorily incapable of committing a crime. Between 8 and 12, there is a statutory presumption that a child is incapable of committing a crime, but that is rebuttable. The statute says &quot;Children under the age of eight years are incapable of committing crime&quot;, and it say nothing about understanding concepts. Florida law used to allow that a 6 year old can commit a crime, then when they arrested a 6 year old, they changed the law. But, the law says A child younger than 7 years of age may not be taken into custody, arrested, charged, or adjudicated delinquent for a delinquent act or violation of law based on an act occurring before he or she reaches 7 years of age, unless the violation of law is a forcible felony as defined in s. 776.08 so a 6 year old can be arrested (charged, tried, convicted) for murder. Virginia does not appear to have any statute declaring 6 year olds to be categorially incapable of committing a crime. The question of capacity is of course a real consideration – insanity remains a defense against criminal charges.
Public nudity is not generally prohibited in most of Europe, only exhibitionism is (exhibitionism: openly presenting your private parts in a way to stimulate sexual desire). Now that does not mean you can really walk around nude everywhere. If there are other people around, you may be fined for &quot;public harassment&quot;. That will typically only give a small fine, though. Particularly in Germany, but also in parts of France, beaches are normally fine. While there are often separate areas for nude bathing, usually people don't really care, unless there are a lots of children around. In Germany, almost nobody wears something for a swim before breakfast. And IIRC wearing nothing in your house or even in your garden is perfectly fine, even if it can be seen from outside. So while you might be looked at strangely if you only wear those shorts (particularly in the middle of a town) I don't think much will happen.
Yes, barring any statutory prohibitions against such a rule. I would be very surprised if any existed. They don't exist in any jurisdiction I'm familiar with. Look up the local by-laws to be sure.
In California, you can get a driver's license at age 16, as well as a motorcycle license. This is similar to the minimum age in most other states. According to this article, California law generally permits minors to own property. There is a restriction for motor vehicles: Vehicle Code section 15500 says that a minor can only own a motor vehicle if they have a valid driver's license. But Lewis certainly could have satisfied this. So it would have been entirely possible and legal for Lewis to own, and ride, a motorcycle at age 16, provided that he had satisfied all the requirements (driver training, etc) and been issued a license.