Well said, Peter! Probably it was not such a good idea for everyone to listen to their "inner child". How is it that the most prosperous generation in world history has the least stomach for facing the hard realities of adulthood?

Well, I can go along with most of that; but on the other hand, aren't the adults clueless about how kids (teens and younger) think and assess and react.

They do think, you know.

For evidence, I'd offer any kid who's been through the DARE program.

So it would appear that asking Amy Carter for foreign policy advice wasn't stupid but just another case of the Peanut Farmer being being a bit too ahead of the times?

The problem with adults trying to understand how children think and react is that in a few years, they should no longer be children. So what's the point? Better to teach them that, eventually, like it or not, they will have to think and behave as adults, and to learn to deal with it.

Or we can continue to expand our current system where those who choose to be irresponsible, perpetual children are given a free pass.If so, then the least we can do is make it clear that if you make that choice, you are going to be a properly treated as a second-class citizen, not treated as if you have some special, superior insight that comes with irresponsibility.

To play the devil's advocate here: 1) The idea that teenagers are "children" is a relatively modern idea. 2) Didn't Orrin, in regards to a post about England and the 1950s, claim the 1850s as even better? Back then wasn't the average 16-year-old working full time and married with a kid or two?

I have no objection to testing this idea, because I'd actually like to see the results. It might well be that teenagers are harsher judges of their peers than adults.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything Mr. Burnet said, but I do think teens and preteens are sometimes savvier than they're given credit for. To take a personal example, I never believed a single word Bill Clinton said after I saw an interview he gave when I was 11 years old. Clinton was the president-elect, and Barbara Walters asked him what he would say if Fidel Castro (who she had just completed a rather maudlin and adulatory interview with) walked into the room.

Clinton bit his lower lip and said the following phony line (I quote him exactly): "Haven't you learned? Give the Cuban people their freedom."

I knew from the moment I heard this that Bill Clinton was unworthy of office, because he had just lied to me, Barbara Walters, and every other American who was watching the program. The phoniness of it astonished me (I got major deja vu many years later while in college when Clinton met Castro at a party, shook his hand, and chatted him up).

I wasn't the only teenager or preteen who felt this way about Clinton; I used to slightly cringe when I heard him referred to as an "overgrown adolescent," because I knew plenty of adolescents who couldn't stand the guy.

My point is that there were plenty of kids who were shrewd enough to spot silver-tongued grifters like Clinton. And those of us who felt that way probably had more sense than a lot of adults.

Matt:

I didn't mean to imply that teens were stupid. You are right that many of them are savvy, particularly with repect to their peers. But there is more to justice than just trying to figure out who is telling the truth. Deciding appropriate sanctions and interpreting law are functions that should demand study and a material stake in society. No responsibility, no power.

This issue overlaps somewhat with the question of whether wrongdoers should be judged by their victims or their victims' class. Traditionally our legal system has said no, but procedural and constitutional excesses and the corruption of expertise have strengthened the hands of those who argue otherwise.