The fundamental question at issue in the article is whether a 19-year-old (Christopher Vialva was 19 when he killed two youth ministers in Texas), whose brain is not fully developed until 25 – especially in terms of higher level reasoning, judgment, and decision-making processing (including how to inhibit baser, more emotionally-laden instincts) – can be tried as an “adult†for a capital crime like murder. The age of 18 is used in our society for a number of milestone markers that denote adulthood – the right to vote, the right to enter the military (or be to drafted in case of a reinstatement of the draft in a major emergency), and, up until the mid 1980’s, the right to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes. For drinking and smoking (along with visiting bars are night clubs), consistent epidemiological data about their harmful physical effects of alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs have allowed many states to raise the required age up to a maximum of 21. However, even at an age of 21, a young adult still has four more years before his/her brain reaches full maturity in terms of its highest-level functioning.
I am going to leave your answers to this topic more open-ended than for the first topic in in terms of how you can approach it, but I would like you to address the following two topics with citations (refereed-journal articles for the first one, whenever possible):
Explain exactly what cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists mean when the say that we now understand the brain is not fully developed until the age of 25. Precisely what type of higher-order psychological functioning are they referring to? Cite at least three peer-reviewed articles that will help you to outline the final major developmental changes that occur in the cerebral cortex and elsewhere in our early 20’s.
Pick an area where the current societal age criterion for young adults (e.g., drinking, smoking, ability to be tried as an adult for felonies, eligibility for military service, the right to vote) are lower than 25 and, based on at least four articles (preferably peer-reviewed, but there are also articles in major reputable media outlets like the Washington Post and the New York Times that have extensive, well-researched investigative journalism on these subjects) to support a position that either: (1) laws/rules/regulations should be changed in light of our more recent understanding of the time-course for full brain development (and how that might occur), or; (2) that the law/rules/regulations should stay in place for logical reasons in spite of what cognitive neuroscience research tells us. Probably the most pressing area to delve into is the justice system, where decisions an 18- or 19-year-old makes have the potential to send him/her to prison for life or can even lead to execution. However, you are welcome to address any other area is society where age conflicts in young adulthood appear problematic to you. Please make sure, though, to bolster any arguments you make with cited references so that the link between your views and those of experts in various fields can be clearly seen.