Category: Adult

Introduction

The term affordance was introduced by the ecological psychologist James Gibson (1979) to describe the interactions between an actor and an object as action possibilities with respect to the actor. Nowadays, affordance-based design (ABD) is widely utilized to improve usability, minimize human errors and decrease their associated risks (Maier & Faded, 2009). The applications are in the fields of forensic science (Hartman, Whetsel Borzendowski, & Campbell, 2019), user interface design, artificial intelligence (Mi, Tang, Deng, Görner, & Zhang, 2019), and workplace innovation (Durugbo, 2020, in press). However, studies on affordances had been normally focusing on transiently altered body properties or aging. People with altered body property due to chronic diseases were largely omitted (Konczak, Meeuwsen, Cress, 1992; Masoudi, Fadel, Pagano, & Elena, 2019). Here, we propose a quantitative, mechanistic study to explore the impact of a chronic disease, namely obesity, on perceived affordance.

Obesity affected 93.3 million United States adults (39.8% of the U.S. population) from 2015 to 2016 (Hales, Carroll, Fryar, & Ogden, 2017). It has been linked to increased risk of several diseases such as stroke, cancer, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, type II diabetes mellitus, and mental health problems (Xu, & Lam, 2018). It has also been shown that being overweight or obese can decrease cognitive abilities (Steenbergen, & Colzato, 2017), increase mechanical constraints, impair visual motor coordination (Gaul, Mat, O’Shea, & Issartel, 2016), and alter balance and movement control (Teasdale et al., 2013). The proposed research will utilize an ergonomics approach to understand the impact of obesity and overweight on perceived affordance. More specifically, the classic stair climbing task will be performed to assess the perceived affordances of people with different Body Mass Indexes (Warren, 1984). This study can be a proof of concept to characterize the altered perception due to chronic diseases such as obesity. It would also provide guidance for designing more inclusive tools and working environments for people suffering from these prevalent chronic conditions such as obesity.

Statement of Research Questions

Are there significant differences in perceived affordances in visually guided stair-climbing tasks among adults aged from 20 to 40 years in the Greater Philadelphia area with a Body Mass Index (BMI) below 25, from 25 to 30, and above 30?

• Aim 1: Are there significant differences in the visually perceived critical riser heights among adults aged from 20 to 40 years with different BMIs?
• Aim 2: Are there significant differences in the achieved riser heights among adults aged from 20 to 40 years with different BMIs?
• Aim 3: Are there significant differences in the correlations between perceived and achieved riser heights among adults aged from 20 to 40 years with different BMIs?

Participants

Participants will be recruited by information sessions, flyers, and posters at local community centers, commercial fitness centers, and local municipal facilities. All participants shall no previous history of neurologic or Psychiatric disorders on file. Also, they should have normal or corrected to normal vison. In addition, all participants shall be from 20 to 40 years old with no sign of mild cognitive impairment or dementia according to their age (age-specific test scores can be assessed by the DemTect) (Kalbe el al, 2004). Furthermore, all participants need to have a body mass index (BMI) above 18.5 and a height range from 155 cm to 185 cm. Participation in the study will be compensated financially upon study completion.

This study sample consists of participants with a BMI from 18.5 to 25, from 25 to 30, and above 30 according to definitions of overweight and obesity (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017). The goal is to recruit 20 individuals for each BMI category. Each BMI group should have comparable characteristics (such as gender, height, weight, and age). In total, 60 individuals who meet the inclusion criteria will be recruited.

Materials and Equipment

The English version of the DemTect test will be used to if any participant displays any sign of mild cognitive impairment or dementia that would affect the test result. A standardized eye chart will be used to determine if participants have normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Anthropometric measures will be obtained using a hand-held goniometer, a weight scale, and a stadiometer.

Twelve sets of adjustable stairs will be set up with random order in a semicircle with a 15-feet radius (Konczak, Meeuwsen, & Cress, 1992). The riser height of each stairs will be unique and ranging from 55% to 110% of each participant’s leg length. Each stairway will have two steps. All the stairs will be in black color, and 1 inch-wide white tapes will mark the back and the front edge of each step. One number from 1 to 12 will be assigned to each stairs randomly to facilitate identification. The identification number will be printed out in 6 cm by 10 cm large white paper and taped to the lower right corner of each set of stairs.

The experiment data will be recorded with SuperLab 5 Electronic Lab Notebook System (Cedrus Corporation).

Procedures

After initial eligibility screenings and informed consent procedures, measurement of physical characteristics of each participant will be conducted. This includes to measure and record heights of standing and sitting, length of lower leg, and length of upper leg.

Following above measurement, the adjustable stair displays will be adjusted according to the leg length of each individual participant. Each participant will be led to the center of the display semicircle, so each set of stairs is in the same position with respect to the participant. The participant will be asked to identify the staircase with the largest rise height that they think they could climb bipedally. The identification number of the initially identified staircase, and its corresponding riser height, will be recorded as the perceived maximum riser height (as a percentage of the participant’s leg length). Then, each participant will attempt to climb the identified stairs. If the first attempt is unsuccessful, participants will attempt to climb the next lower staircase until they succeed. If successful in their first try, participants will attempt to ascend the next higher stair until they fail. The greatest riser height of the staircase that is climbed successfully will be recorded as the achieved maximum riser height (as a percentage of the participant’s leg length).

Analysis

SPSS Statistics 25 software (IBM) will be utilized to analyze anthropometric and behavioral data. Statistical significance will be determined by reporting two-tailed p-values (p < .05). An ANOVA will be performed to determine if there is any significant group difference in perceived maximum riser height and achieved maximum riser height measurement, between normal (BMI>18.5, 25, 30) groups.

To determine the impact of BMIs on the correlation between perceived and achieved maximum riser height, regression analysis will be performed between perceived maximum riser height and achieved maximum riser height for each BMI group. If all correlations are found to be statistically significant, a Fisher’s r to z transformation will be performed to determine if there is a significant difference between those correlation coefficients. All correlation coefficients used here will be determined with data collected in the proposed study. The analysis is predicted to be a text-book linear regression procedure that may or may not be the same as previous studies (Yan, & Su, 2009).

Human Subjects

This project does involve human subject according to Human Subject Research guidelines (45 CFR 46, 2009). The proposed systematic investigation is research as its findings can contribute to generalizable knowledge. The focus of this study is to investigate the impact of BMI on the perceived affordance of individual human subjects. Accordingly, this study will be conducted according to the Protection of Human Subjects (45 C. F. R. 46, 2009). Thus, study will only commence upon Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Furthermore, informed consents form will be provided to all participants, informed consent procedure will be conducted accordingly. All private information and other data from all participants will be kept safe and confidential. We subscribe to the ethical principles underlying the conduct of research involving human subjects as set forth in the Belmont Report (1978). We are also in compliance with the Common Rule in the Code of Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46, 2009) on the Protection of Human Subjects.

References

1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). Defining adult overweight and obesity. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult/defining.html
2. Durugbo, C. M. (2020). Affordance-based problem structuring for workplace innovation. European Journal of Operational Research, In press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.12.044
3. Gaul, D., Mat, A., O’Shea, D., & Issartel, J. (2016). Impaired visual motor coordination in obese adults. Journal of Obesity, 2016, 6178575. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6178575
4. Gibson, J. J. (1979). Chapter eight: The theory of affordances, In J. J. Gibson (Ed), The ecological approach to visual perception (Classic Ed., pp. 119-136). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830260313.
5. Hales, C. M., Carroll, M. D., Fryar, C. D., & Ogden, C. L. (2017). Prevalence of obesity among adults and youth: United States, 2015–2016. NCHS Data Brief, No. 288, 1-8. Retrieve from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db288.pdf
6. Hartman, L. S., Whetsel Borzendowski, S. A., & Campbell, A. O. (2019). Application of affordance theory to the forensic investigation of a personal Injury. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63(1), 573–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631358
7. Kalbe, E., Kessler, J., Calabrese, P., Smith, R., Passmore, A., Brand, M., & Bullock, R. (2004). DemTect: A new, sensitive cognitive screening test to support the diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment and early dementia. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 19(2), 136-143. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.1042
8. Konczak, J., Meeuwsen, H. J., & Cress, M. E. (1992). Changing affordances in stair climbing: The perception of maximum climbability in young and older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(3), 691–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.18.3.691
9. Lee, I. M., Shiroma, E. J., Lobelo, F., Puska, P., Blair, S. N., Katzmarzyk, P. T., & Lancet Physical Activity Series Working Group (2012). Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: An analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet, 380(9838), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61031-9
10. Maier, J. R. A., & Fadel, G. (2009). Affordance-based design methods for innovative design, redesign and reverse engineering. Research in Engineering Design. 20. 225-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-009-0064-7
11. Masoudi, N., Fadel, G., Pagano, C., & Elena, M. V. (2019). A Review of affordances and affordance-based design to address usability. Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design. 1. 1353-1362. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.141
12. Mi, J., Tang, S., Deng, Z., Görner, M., & Zhang, J. (2019). Object affordance based multimodal fusion for natural Human-Robot interaction. Cognitive Systems Research, 54, 128-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsys.2018.12.010
13. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1978). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Bethesda, Md.: The Commission. Retrieved from: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015004406214&view=1up&seq=3
14. Protection of Human Subjects, 45 C.F.R. §46 (2009).
15. Steenbergen, L., & Colzato, L. S. (2017). Overweight and cognitive performance: High body mass index is associated with impairment in reactive control during task switching. Frontiers in nutrition, 4, 51. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2017.00051
16. Teasdale, N., Simoneau, M., Corbeil, P., Handrigan, G., Tremblay, A., & Hue. O. (2013). Obesity alters balance and movement control. Current Obesity Reports, 2, 235–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-013-0057-8
17. Warren, W. H. (1984). Perceiving affordances: visual guidance of stair climbing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1984, 10(5):683-703. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.10.5.683
18. Xu, L., & Lam, T. (2018). Stage of obesity epidemic model: Learning from tobacco control and advocacy for a framework convention on obesity control. Journal of Diabetes, 10(7), 564-571. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-0407.12647
19. Yan, X., & Su, X. (2009). Linear regression analysis: Theory and computing. Singapore; Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific., pp. 1–2. ISBN 9789812834119,

In this essay I am going to explain and analyze the benefits and drawbacks of returning to education as an adult. I propose that there are more positives than negatives. Starting with the negatives, listed in order of significance: stress time, social differences in thinking (due to age, maturity, etc.), and finances. The positives (also listed in order of significance) include: more life experience, employment outlook and skin in the game.

Beginning with the dilemma of stress and juggling responsibilities. I think this is largely dependent on the age and circumstance of the individual. For example, people who are 30 are much more likely to be in a serious relationship, have animals, and finally, they may have a child to also consider. If a mature student does not have the necessary time management skills under their belt, it can limit their potential. It can have a significant effect on someone, because the stress of having to balance those responsibilities can cause an increase in cortisol and adrenergic signaling, which subsequently cause anxiety.

One of the biggest obstacles adult learners face is the combination of self-doubt about their own ability to cope with the demands of their education and the issue of ‘fitting in’ with their younger counterparts. Adults often feel like they should have everything figured out due to their age. However, the idea of returning to learning as an adult can raise questions like, ‘Will I actually be able to manage?’, or ‘Am I smart enough?’. These can lead to the unpleasant experience of imposter syndrome. Additionally, adult students may feel that the difference in age and development will lead to problems when it comes time to make friends.

Moving on to the subject of finances. Because older students are less likely to get funding than their younger peers, it often can be a problem. A report by MillionPlus showed that in 2012 after university tuition fees were raised, the number mature students dropped by 20%. This highlights the impact that finances have on adult students and the decision to return to learning.

Now, on to the advantages of returning to learning as an adult. Firstly, going back into education as an adult means that you bring years of life experience and job experience to the table. This comes into the picture when deciding what degree or course you want to do. Most people don’t know what they want to do for the rest of their life when they’re 18 years old, so returning the learning as an adult, once you’ve had the time to really examine where your passion lies, it can help guide your career path.

Next, is employment/career outcomes. According to the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU), on average, those with a bachelor’s degree made $32,000 more than people with a high-school diploma. Furthermore, people with a master’s degree make an additional $12,000 per year than those with a bachelor’s, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Finally, we need to factor in that adult students will often have much more ‘skin in the game’ than younger students. This is because they may have additional responsibilities, like children or a job to hold down, all whilst they pursue a degree. What this means, is that unlike a young student who has their education bankrolled by their parents, for example, an adult student has the added pressure of a child or a spouse to consider. And so, they are much less likely to willingly drop out, or to become lazy and lose focus. Meaning that they have the drive to finish the degree.

Overall, I’m of the opinion that the positives outweigh the negatives when it comes to returning to learning as an adult. Adult students are more likely to have a clear path defined for reaching their goal, and they’re more likely to commit fully and grab the opportunity to complete their degree by the horns. If they can manage to overcome the few obstacles that can make returning to education as an adult challenging, they have a wonderful chance to utilize their life experience and reach their goals.

In this essay I am going to explain and analyze the benefits and drawbacks of returning to education as an adult. I propose that there are more positives than negatives. Starting with the negatives, listed in order of significance: stress time, social differences in thinking (due to age, maturity, etc.), and finances. The positives (also listed in order of significance) include: more life experience, employment outlook and skin in the game.

Beginning with the dilemma of stress and juggling responsibilities. I think this is largely dependent on the age and circumstance of the individual. For example, people who are 30 are much more likely to be in a serious relationship, have animals, and finally, they may have a child to also consider. If a mature student does not have the necessary time management skills under their belt, it can limit their potential. It can have a significant effect on someone, because the stress of having to balance those responsibilities can cause an increase in cortisol and adrenergic signaling, which subsequently cause anxiety.

One of the biggest obstacles adult learners face is the combination of self-doubt about their own ability to cope with the demands of their education and the issue of ‘fitting in’ with their younger counterparts. Adults often feel like they should have everything figured out due to their age. However, the idea of returning to learning as an adult can raise questions like, ‘Will I actually be able to manage?’, or ‘Am I smart enough?’. These can lead to the unpleasant experience of imposter syndrome. Additionally, adult students may feel that the difference in age and development will lead to problems when it comes time to make friends.

Moving on to the subject of finances. Because older students are less likely to get funding than their younger peers, it often can be a problem. A report by MillionPlus showed that in 2012 after university tuition fees were raised, the number mature students dropped by 20%. This highlights the impact that finances have on adult students and the decision to return to learning.

Now, on to the advantages of returning to learning as an adult. Firstly, going back into education as an adult means that you bring years of life experience and job experience to the table. This comes into the picture when deciding what degree or course you want to do. Most people don’t know what they want to do for the rest of their life when they’re 18 years old, so returning the learning as an adult, once you’ve had the time to really examine where your passion lies, it can help guide your career path.

Next, is employment/career outcomes. According to the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU), on average, those with a bachelor’s degree made $32,000 more than people with a high-school diploma. Furthermore, people with a master’s degree make an additional $12,000 per year than those with a bachelor’s, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Finally, we need to factor in that adult students will often have much more ‘skin in the game’ than younger students. This is because they may have additional responsibilities, like children or a job to hold down, all whilst they pursue a degree. What this means, is that unlike a young student who has their education bankrolled by their parents, for example, an adult student has the added pressure of a child or a spouse to consider. And so, they are much less likely to willingly drop out, or to become lazy and lose focus. Meaning that they have the drive to finish the degree.

Overall, I’m of the opinion that the positives outweigh the negatives when it comes to returning to learning as an adult. Adult students are more likely to have a clear path defined for reaching their goal, and they’re more likely to commit fully and grab the opportunity to complete their degree by the horns. If they can manage to overcome the few obstacles that can make returning to education as an adult challenging, they have a wonderful chance to utilize their life experience and reach their goals.

Age is just a number. This is a saying that has transpired through time, taking on new meanings every time it is used. It has gone from describing an age difference in a relationship to justifying actions where age is involved. But for some things, age is not just a number. In fact, age may be the biggest ally someone has against the death penalty. But how does one decide how age is used within our systems? In the juvenile justice system, age is the deciding factor in everything. It decides whether one can be tried in adult court and it influences the types of sentences a juvenile can receive. It is also involved in the consent to sex and marriage as well. Age is an important aspect of the justice system and can greatly influence decisions within it. But there is a problem with this. If age is the line between being tried as a juvenile or an adult, how does one know what age is appropriate for the line to rest on? It seems each state and jurisdiction has its own idea of where that line rests. It is inconsistent and unhelpful. One solid set of ages needs to be decided on because, with the way it is now, there are a lot of issues with the public seeing juveniles tried as adults, even when they are not considered to be so in any other part of the law. With the support of articles such as “An Age of Reason: Paradoxes in the U.S. legal construction of Adulthood” by Laurie Schaffner and “Good, Bad and Wrongful Juvenile Sex: Rethinking the Use of Statutory Rape Laws Against the Protected Class” by Dr. Anna High, one can conclude that there does need to be a set standard of ages for the juvenile justice system and a crystal-clear understanding of where the lines between juvenile and adulthood are drawn.

When it comes to sex and marriage, over the years our views have changed. Once it was okay for a 12-year-old girl to marry a man in his forties, however now that is not seen as proper. In fact, many view marriage before the age of 18 as wrong and impermissible. From a culture that saw sex before marriage as ungodly but would marry off their children before the age of 16 to one that idolizes one-night stands and sex but believes it is socially unacceptable to marry under the age of 18 is a massive change. Our society has switched itself around. Now we have something that prevents the old way from happening. Something called statutory rape, which is sex with a minor under the age of 16 with less than 3 years of age difference. Anything greater than a 3-year difference is counted as rape. It also includes minors having sex together. But over the years there has been quite a debate on what the guidelines for statutory rape should be. In the article “Good, Bad and Wrongful Juvenile Sex: Rethinking the Use of Statutory Rape Laws Against the Protected Class” by Dr. Anna High, she approaches this debate. High questions about whether the law can criminalize the act of sex between two minors because they are the class that the law is trying to protect. Because of the enhancements in technology and media, minors are introduced to sexuality earlier in their lives, but the law and society still recognize them as vulnerable and immature. High states that even though the law has evolved to have some give, such as the “Romeo and Juliet” laws, not all statutory rape laws have evolved to the point that no minors are committing a crime even though consent was present. High suggests that there are two different forms of statutory rape among minors: “proceedings against both minors under the theory that each is both victim and offender in relation to the same act; or one-sided proceedings against the “true offender” (High 790). But according to the High, neither one of them is accurate. She states that it is illogical to think that minors can victimize each other. She goes on to argue that to charge based on the “true offender” notion would give discriminatory enforcement and over-criminalization of adolescent sex a potential rise. So, neither of these systems works. High concludes by discussing how to correctly reformulate the legal response to adolescent sex, stating that “sex abuse statutes may need to be (1) strengthened to ensure that fault-based rape laws adequately target coercive but non-forcible sex among juveniles, and (2) supplemented with juvenile- specific offenses targeting problematic sexual behavior warranting reformative intervention” (High 790). High believes that by targeting these two main ideas one can find a way to successfully enforce statutory rape among minors. Dr. High is not the only one to believe there is a problem with the statutory rape law. In the article “Recasting Vagueness: The Case of Teen Sex Statutes” by Cynthia Godsoe, she also discusses the question of which minor is the offender and which is the victim of underage sex. Godsoe states that even though sex among minors is illegal in all 50 states, there is no set of guidelines for trying them, and it is over-criminalized because of this. But unlike High, Godsoe argues for the complete decriminalization of peer statutory rape, stating that “In so doing, it posits a new category of offender-less harms—societal problems for which no one should be punished” (Godsoe 186). She does not agree that it is a crime and that the laws we have now are flawed and incompetent. Both High and Godsoe argue that age should not be a factor in sex among minors and by doing so it over-criminalizes the act of sex and blurs the lines within the juvenile justice system and what statutory rape really is.

Another branch within the juvenile system where age is a major component is the border between the juvenile courts and the adult courts. How does one decide where that line is? The problem the system has is no one really knows how to answer that question, so it is different within the states and levels of jurisdiction. But for something such as this, a wider spread final decision needs to be made to stabilize the issues that have arisen because of this blurry line. In the article “An Age of Reason: Paradoxes in the U.S. Legal Construction of Adulthood” by Laurie Schaffner, she discusses the criteria a juvenile might have to be considered for an adult trial. She also discusses many of the different laws and practices a prosecutor or judge looks at before determining whether the juvenile should be tried in an adult court. Schaffner states that “we live in a postmodern era. “Age” is no longer necessarily a handy measure of maturity. Experiences are relative and vary, more than that they are linearly developmental” (Schaffner 224). Schaffner claims that even though age might have been a factor decades ago in deciding whether a juvenile can be processed in an adult court, that is no longer the case. It is now up to the courts to determine who meets the criteria of going to adult court, which leaves citizens in the unknown of where that line is. Schaffner may not readily disagree with this notion, but in Patrick McCormick’s article “Fit to Be Tried?”, it is clear he does not agree with the idea that juveniles can be tried as adults. McCormick states that even though children have been tried as adults since the beginning of the juvenile court system, for the past century the justice system has been more focused on rehabilitating juvenile delinquents. He argues that “More than a century after the first juvenile court was founded in Chicago, we have even more reason to know that adolescents are not small adults, and should not be treated or punished as if they were” (McCormick 18). McCormick believes that it is unlawful to treat a juvenile, who is not seen in the eyes of the law as an adult on any other topic as if they could comprehend the punishment and wrongdoing of the action they committed. While McCormick is strongly against trying juveniles as adults, he does not clearly state the other side’s view. In the article “Juveniles Tried as Adults: The Age of The Juvenile Matters” by Jaclyn Semple and William Woody, they focus their research on the ages that adult courts are more likely to convict a harsher penalty. They found that juveniles between the ages of 13 and 15 received a lesser conviction than a juvenile between 17 and 21. By examining the jury decisions on juvenile cases, Semple and Woody hoped to gain insight on which way a jury generally leans, and whether age is a factor. They found that the age of the defendant did not significantly affect the conviction decision, but rather the sentencing. The authors concluded that “This study suggests that mock jurors struggle to appropriately conform to legal expectations in their evaluations of juvenile defendants tried as adults; despite legal guidelines, jurors differentiate between juveniles of different ages” (Semple and Woody 307). Age still affects a juvenile when they are put in an adult court, for many find it difficult to comprehend a 13-year-old can commit a murder and be counted as fully competent in doing so.

Age is something that affects everyone, on little scales and big ones. But it constricts minors the most. One must reach a certain age to achieve a privilege. It is something that is important within our society now. It defines what one may do and what one may not do. But for some cases, age is not clearly defined. In the juvenile justice system, it is clearly seen that age is something that is a cornerstone for this part of the law. But when it is not fully defined and boundaries are not clearly set, it is not hard to see why there are problems when it comes to things such as statutory rape among minors and juveniles being tried as adults. With this unknown blank attached to the back of these topics, frustrations can run high. The justice system must clearly set ages for topics such as these. Without doing so, it weakens the control and order it is supposed to provide. If the system were to set an age and hold firm to one set of rules with something such as the problems of statutory rape among minors, then it would no longer be over-criminalized. If one age were to be given to the states for trying a juvenile as an adult with justifiable reasons behind it, public backlash would decrease and community support would rise for the justice system. Leaving these problems undecided, brings about chaos and mistrust within the system. Age is not just a number, as clearly seen within the justice system, it is something that defines your rights and responsibilities. Setting solid age boundaries is not an issue, they can be accepted with time. Leaving the system the way it is, however, will continue to cause problems, and ultimately is why the juvenile justice system is not as successful as it could be.