Yes. THIS person is 16 years of age, and many would agree with you that this is an age that a person can make a rational decision. But that was not my point. In law, there HAS to be an age of responsibility defined, otherwise there is no clarity about the law.
I understand your point, and of course a 12 year old - or 9 year old - can commit liquidate. The fact that they can make decisions is not strictly relevant - a two year old makes decisions too, based on reason. There has to be an age at which it is acceptable for a person to take responsibility for their actions, but it is not simply based on their capacity to make a decision.
That is not relevant to this discussion. There are some 9 year olds far more responsible as human beings than some 20 year olds, but the law has to make a distinction based on age, just as it does with the age of consent, or the blood alcohol limit.
There's nothing magical about that; it's an arbitrary dividing line for the sake of legal practicality. If you say a person is responsible for their actions in regard to crime at any age, then you will also have to agree that there should also be no age of consent for love. Do you?
Rifty
-- Academic and Computing Help
