Doli incapax which is applicable in United Kingdom
Doli incapax (‘Incapable of deceit’ in Latin) is the doctrine that children are presumed incapable of committing a crime since they can’t differentiate between right and wrong; and thus, could not possess the mens rea (guilty mind or intent) required to prove guilt. This presumption of criminal incapacity has an irrebuttable and a rebuttable form depending on the age of the child.
Section 50 of Children and Young Persons Act 1933, with amendment s 16(1) of CYPA 1963, stated:
" It shall be conclusively presumed that no child under the age of ten years can be guilty of any offence."
Simply, it can be presumed that children below the age of ten are doli incapax and deemed not criminally responsible.
The presumption of doli incapax was used as a defence where it could be proven that the child is incapable of differentiate between right and wrong and commit the alleged crime. However, the presumption can be rebutted if the child is proven to have knowledge of what he is doing.
In the case of R v JTB, a 12-year-old boy was accused of causing or inciting other boys under the age of 13 to engage in sexual activity. It is contrary to s 13(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The victims were of varying ages and were either the boy’s friends or members of families he knew. The boy admitted the sexual activity in an interview but said that he did not think that what he was doing was wrong. The issue raised by this appeal is whether the effect of s. 34 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has been to abolish the defence of doli incapax entirely for children aged between 10 and 14, or only to abolish the presumption that the child could rely on that defence; providing an avenue for the ...
... middle of paper ...
...ild’s immaturity and using the allocated resources and support (institutional as well as parents and society) to establish the roots of the problems so that remedial actions as well as punishment (where necessary) can be taken to counter the delinquencies. The focus of the new system would be on problem-solving and corrective instead of punitive; so that the child can outgrow his delinquency and more readily assimilated into society. The resources needed for manpower support (such as trained social workers, specially trained magistrates, psychologists and counselors) would be substantial but should, in the long term, lead to reduced juvenile delinquencies. The laws need to be reformed to facilitate operation of the new juvenile court system as well as to cater for the immaturity period until the child reach 16 years of age (recognized as mature enough for marriage).
The book “No Matter How Loud I Shout” written by Edward Humes, looks at numerous major conflicts within the juvenile court system. There is a need for the juvenile system to rehabilitate the children away from their lives of crime, but it also needs to protect the public from the most violent and dangerous of its juveniles, causing one primary conflict. Further conflict arises with how the court is able to administer proper treatment or punishment and the rights of the child too due process. The final key issue is between those that call for a complete overhaul of the system, and the others who think it should just be taken apart. On both sides there is strong reasoning that supports each of their views, causing a lot of debate about the juvenile court system.
The Youth Criminal Justice Act, often called by the name of YCJA, is specifically made for youths ages varying from 12 to 17 that disobey the law. In April 1, 2003, the YCJA replaced the previous justice act called Young Offenders Act due to several negative concerns. “These concerns included the overuse of the courts and incarceration in less serious cases, disparity and unfairness in sentencing, a lack of effective reintegration of young people released from custody, and the need to better take into account the interests of victims.” The main purpose of the YCJA aims to have a fairer and more equitable system. Although the YCJA is an effective law within the justice system, a main aspect/characteristic that needs to remain, is keeping the
It is expected that at a young age, children are taught the difference between what is right and what is wrong in all types of situations. The majority of Supreme Court Justices abolished mandatory life in prison for juveniles that commit heinous crimes, argued this with the consideration of age immaturity, impetuosity, and also negative family and home environments. These violent crimes can be defined as murder, rape, armed robbery, aggravated assault and the like depending on state law. With these monstrous acts in mind the supreme court justices argument could be proven otherwise through capability and accountability, the underdevelopment of the teenage brain and the severity of the crime. Juveniles commit heinous crimes just like adults
In the last 42 years little to no changes have been made to correct the standards that govern punitive measures towards juvenile delinquency. Today juvenile law is governed by state and many states have enacted a juvenile code. However, in numerous cases, juveniles are transferred to adult court when juvenile courts waive or relinquish jurisdiction. Adolescents should not be tried in the adult court system or sentenced to adult penitentiary's on account of: teen brains are not mature which causes a lack of understanding towards the system, incarceration in an adult facility increases juvenile crime, and children that are sentenced to adult prison are vulnerable to abuse and rape.
This paper will analyze the different theoretical issues pertaining to the modern juvenile court, determine their origin, and suggest a course of action for resolving these issues to the best extent possible. It is important to note, however, that the juvenile justice system alone cannot ever prevent all juvenile crime, respond perfectly to every situation or treat every suspect fairly. Furthermore, an effective antidote to modern juvenile crime would necessitate far broader action, addressing underlying social structure inequalities that breed poverty and social disorganization.
Under age 7, ages 7-14, and over age 14 are the three age groups for determining children’s capacity to commit a crime. Children under the age of 7 that commit a crime have no criminal capacity, children between 7-14 children are presumed to not have criminal capacity, but it can be overturned, and children over 14 have the same capacity as adults.
For decades, the contentious issue on whether or not juveniles should be tried as adults for heinous crimes has stirred up a gargantuan amount of disputation. However, juveniles are taken into account as “children” only under certain circumstances. When the situation comes to smoking, drinking, voting and watching rated-R movies, juveniles are merely children. However, when the circumstances are absolute, juries are so compelled to have children be tried as adults when juveniles commit severe crimes that courts go to the extent of sentencing juveniles to long-term punishments. Nonetheless, juveniles who are tried as adults arise significantly more problems than they had before, thus, juveniles should not be tried as adults in spite of that it causes so much controversy and is
Myers, J. B. (2008). A Short History of Child Protection in America. Family Law Quarterly,
Every day a child is called on to testify in a courtroom. Children who have to testify in open court are easily influenced by outside sources. This paper will show the reasons children should not be used as witnesses in a courtroom. I will show all the different influences that a child receives and prove them uncredible. The interview process can influence a child greatly. Ceci and Bruck (1995) found a study that shows that child witnesses may be questioned up to12 times during the course of an investigation. The questioning process can take up to a year and a half to be completed. Children are not capable of remembering exact details for that period. Their answers to questions will change each time he or she is asked. This is because they do not retain information in the same way as an adult. Most studies have shown that children start to lose their ability to recall an event accurately only 10 days after the original event has happened. Another factor in a child’s ability to recall an event is stress. A child can go into a shock stage and repress all memories of what has happened to them. These memories may not resurface for many years. This affects a child’s ability to identify the suspect in photo and live line-ups. The amount of stress a child goes through affects their ability to answer questions in an interview, if they cannot remember what has happened, how are they supposed to answer the myriad of questions the interviewer will ask them.
Before 1908, the nature of the developing society caused children at risk to commit crimes. In nineteenth century and even early of twentieth, there were many orphaned and negected children in the society. They came from Europe or other colonies and they could lose their parent during long time trip. The doli incapax defence, "the incapacity to do wrong" - children who under the age of seven (in some cases, the maximum was 13) were incapable to commit crime, was initially presumed. It misled that youth could be innocent when charged in every case. However, children could have the same intelligence as adults to know the consequences of doing wrong things. Thus, children who were convicted of criminal would face the same penalties and were treated as adult offenders (The evolution of, 2009, p1). However, sometimes, penalties went beyond justice – these children would receive harsh punishment for minor criminal acts.
The law charges against the two boys in Chicago because they murder an 11-year-old girl, then steal her bicycle. This case causes a big dispute that weather the kids should take the responsibility for their crimes. I believe that the treatment to the two boys is candid and appropriate because they are old enough to understand what they are doing, and they have to pay for their sin. According to the Roman Catholic Church, 7 is the ”age of reason” to the kids. The children are capable to understand the reason and knowledge in the society when they are 7 or older. In this case, One of the boys is 8 years old, the other one is 7 years old. Both of them are in the age of reason. They must to take the responsibility for the murder due to
Throughout the history in the article “Early in U.S. history, children who broke the law were treated the same as adult criminals” (1999) that was written by the Bulletin: Juvenile Justice, explains around the nineteenth century, young children at age seven who are accused for a dishonest behavior were to be imprisoned either with the adult or sentenced to death if found guilty on stand trial in criminal court offenses (1999).
Delinquency refers to the aspect of failing to abide by the law. Juvenile Delinquency is the aspect of people who are under age breaking the law and thus the need to take a legal action against them. The essay looks into delinquency theories that explain what leads to under age people breaking the law. Secondly, juvenile behavior in regards to the theory is explained as well as the possible strategies put in place to prevent and intervene before juvenile delinquency occurs (National Institute for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (U.S., 1985).
...hould be considered as reintegration would be easier for them. Looking into the background of offenders creates a more holistic picture of the minors allowing the jury to focus more on rehabilitation. For instance Miller a 14- year old killer was subsequently to have suffered years of abuse and violence in his parent’s home, and he had also tried to commit suicide several times (Dahl). The Eighth Amendment is crucial in the justice system as it spells out prohibition against cruelty and unusual punishment and hence the age of minors should be taken into consideration during convictions. At times, political undertones get in the way of the criminal justice system ‘ with being tough on crime’ being election pledges, but such statements ignore the need to integrate minors from poor background into the mainstream society and rehabilitation through alternative means.
Juvenile delinquency is one of the major social issues in the United States today. Juvenile delinquency, also known as juvenile offending, is when “a violation of the law committed by a juvenile and not punishable by death or life imprisonment” (Merriam-webster.com). Although we have one justice system in America, the juvenile system differs from the adult juvenile system. Most juvenile delinquents range from as low as the age of seven to the age of seventeen. Once the delinquent or anyone turns the age of eighteen, they are considered an adult. Therefore, they are tried as an adult, in the justice system. There are many different reasons why a child would commit crime, such as mental and physical factors, home conditions, neighborhood environment and school conditions. In addition, there are a variety of effects that juvenile justice systems can either bad effects or good effects. Finally there are many different solutions that can reduce juvenile delinquency. As a result, juvenile delinquency is a major issue and the likeliness of it can be reduced. In order to reduce juvenile delinquency there has to be an understanding of the causes and the effects.