>We absolutely have different rules for different cohorts today in the US. Crucially, however, none of those rules involve criminal or civil penalties (outside

>We absolutely have different rules for different cohorts today in the US. Crucially, however, none of those rules involve criminal or civil penalties (outside of the distinction between who is and is not considered a full member of society; there are no tiers between full members outside of "does qualify as an adult" and "does not qualify"). It's worth noting that the part of the Constitution that deals with this was laid down after the US fought an incredibly destructive 4-year war against itself *to deny itself its own ability to pass cohort-based law*, though it took a good 100 years after that war for the results to be fully incorporated. Of course, the US certainly isn't perfect in this regard, and this can be abused in the other direction ("In its majestic equality the law forbids both rich and poor to sleep beneath bridges...") but "honor what the 14th says" remains the cultural law of the land for very good reason. >Maybe there are times when cohort based law is a good tool Apartheid schemes and Jim Crow laws have always enjoyed wide popular support- they all have valid anecdotal backing (and scientific backing, if you consider P-hacking valid science), direct society in ways those not targeted by the law find preferable, and have enjoyed wildly popular support amongst the groups not targeted by the law. That's fundamentally what cohort-based law is; society hasn't managed to solve the obvious abuse problems that come with "but I'm too lazy to solve this problem the right way" or "the solution to the problem compatible with human rights is taking too long", because without fail that's what it always becomes.