Quote Originally Posted by Assertn View Post
Edit: Also, I don't know if you actually read your article but, uh... the old lady died as a result of the kids severly injuring her. It sounds like the old lady was in plain view, too. Of course, the power of the media makes it easy to just isolate a sentence and extrapolate a completely different tone for the article, doesn't it?
That sentence was apparent, but wasn't dwelled on. Whether the lady died or not only impacts on the severity of the action and the resulting compensation, not whether or not someone is qualified to be negligible for that said action.

To me, the problem lies with the arbitrary line of responsibility that is "4 years of age". Is there some sort of evidence to back up that line? Some study that indicates children above the age of 4 are capable of being responsible for their own actions and comprehending the consequence like and adult? At the same time, that those under this age of 4 are equally unable to do so and therefore should be exempt from responsibility or negligence?

While the age of 18 here is still "arbitrary" to an extent, it's commonly accepted as being more reasonable. You can choose your own education. You can move out of home. You can drink. You can vote. You can marry. While there may not be any physiological evidence that behaviour over the age of 18 should be more reasonable than 17, you're expected to exercise reasonable judgement (and be accountable for it) since you're given the right to the above actions that make you a free adult.

I really can't say the same for a kid below the age of 5.