Lably
Skip to content

Age of criminal responsibility

Minimum age of a child committed crime

  • 5 min read
  • 5 chapters

Related on Lably

Through Crime, Infant and United Kingdom

Under the English common law the defense of infancy was expressed as a set of presumptions in a doctrine known as doli incapax. A child under the age of seven was presumed incapable of committing a crime. The presumption was conclusive, prohibiting the prosecution from offering evidence that the child had the capacity to appreciate the nature and wrongfulness of what they had done. Children aged 7–13 were presumed incapable of committing a crime but the presumption was rebuttable. The prosecution could overcome the presumption by proving that the child understood what they were doing and that it was wrong. In fact, capacity was a necessary element of the state's case (thus, the rule of sevens doctrine arose). If the state failed to offer sufficient evidence of capacity, the infant was entitled to have the charges dismissed at the close of the state's evidence. Doli incapax was abolished in England and Wales in 1998 for children over the age of 10, but persists in other common law jurisdictions.

Terminology

The terminology regarding such a defense varies by jurisdiction and sphere. "Defense of infancy" is a mainly US term. The "age of criminal responsibility" is used by most European countries, the UK, Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth of Nations countries. Other instances of usage have included the terms age of accountability, age of responsibility, and age of liability.

The term minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) is a term commonly used in the literature.

The rationale behind the age of accountability laws are the same as those behind the insanity defense, insinuating both the mentally disabled and the young lack apprehension.

Sign in to keep reading

4 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Politics and economics