Doli incapax is of Latin originality which means incapable of wrong. It 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.
This term is used in reference to the criminal responsibility of children. Generally, a child under the age of 10 is deemed to be doli incapax meaning they are incapable of committing any crime and therefore does not bear criminal responsibility. Children between the ages of 10-14 were protected by a rebuttable presumption of doli incapax meaning that the child may or may not bear criminal responsibility. It is the responsibility of the prosecutor to prove whether or not the child has knowledge that what he or she did is a crime. If there is not enough evidence to show that the child has knowledge that what he or she did is a crime, the presumption of doli incapax would step in which would deemed that the child does not bear criminal responsibility.
As for children above 14 but below 18 years old, they are doli capax and are treated as adults. However, they would be tried in special youth court which is the Court for Children in Malaysia and subject to special punishments such as detention in the Henry Gurney school . However, not all countries use the principle of doli incapax. For example, s.34 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 of the United Kingdom had expressly abolished the presumption of doli incapax. Furthermore, different countries may practice it in different ways. For example, there may be difference in the age ...
... middle of paper ...
...differentiate right from wrong at an early age, there are still children who genuinely do not know how to differentiate right from wrong as presumed by most. Thus, if the presumption of doli incapax, these children although may just consist of a minority would faced injustice whereby they would now be condemmed to the full rigour of the law without any real intention. Thus, it would defy the purpose of the law.
With regards to the argument that the presumption of doli incapax would be unfair as it would release children who have actus reus and mens rea from bearing criminal responsibility, further limitations on the presumption of doli incapax could be applied instead. For example, the age whereby doli incapax is applicable can be revised. On the other hand, if the presumption of doli incapax is totally abolished, it would leave the innocent totally defenceless.
Have you ever wonder if there is any good justification for the policy of punishing people for breaking laws? Boonin’s definition of punishment consists of Authorized, Reprobative, Retributive, Intentional Harm. The problem of punishment incorporates three different answers. Consequentialism, which makes punishment beneficial (will do good for the people later in the future). Retributivism punishment is a fitting response to crime. As well as, the option of ‘other’ punishment can be a source of education, or expressive matter. Moreover a fourth answer can be an alternative called restitution, punishment is not necessary for social order. In The Problem of Punishment, by David Boonin deeply studies a wide range of theories that explain why the institutions is morally permitted to punish criminals. Boonin argues that no state , no-one succeeds with punishment. To make his argument stronger, he endorses abolitionism, the view
... life. If a child is reached late in life, often a harsh alternative is required, and a very strict law for any violations in crime committed by these teens in relation to gangs and mobs should be dealt with in the most severe manner.
People have, not too long ago, realized that youth and adults are very diverse and should not be treated the same. They gave no time for children to develop the “meins reis”, therefore, they were not given the opportunity to learn. People were not aware that the brain of the youth were not fully developed and were not given the chance of change. They thought that once guilty you shall remain guilty. For that reason they were considered adults, when in reality, adult criminals will only continue to infatuate their mind with evil. The new Youth Criminal Justice Act focuses on change and reintegration with society. We have learned that the youth have not fully developed and do not have the full ability to comprehend such judgements.
However, they are treated differently by the legal system when they commit a criminal offence. In NSW a child under the age of 10 is regarded as too young to form ‘mensrea’ which is referred to as doli incapax. As a result the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987(NSW) states that a child cannot be charged with a criminal offence under the legal system if the child is under 10 years. The principle of doli incapax in the criminal justice system is partially effective in giving rights to the children. However, it has raised concerns for the members of society in regards to justice for the victim as well as the society. This is shown in the case of Corey Davis - R v LMW [1999] NSWSC 1128 where a 10 year old boy threw 6 six years old Corey Davis in the water knowing that he could not swim. Corey’s death received great media outrage, especially when the children’s court ruled the offender not guilty of manslaughter due the principle of doli incapax. Nonetheless, the media attention and the negative public reaction towards the offender was perceived as a lack of justice for the society and the victim. therefore, the public pressure caused the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) to charge the offender with manslaughter This case somewhat reflects the effectiveness of the justice system to an extent of responding to public
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
This essay will first address the statute used and interpretation of the threshold test by the courts, and then focus on cases involving vulnerable children to assess whether the statute in The Children Act 1989 is sufficient in protecting these children from harm. I will look at the argument in favour of the current approach taken by the courts, and the counter-argument in favour of changing the current approach. The arguments are delicately balanced and the law is always developing, so it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court resolves this issue in future.
Thousands of kid criminals in the United States have been tried as adults and sent to prison (Equal Justice Initiative). The debate whether these kids should be tried as adults is a huge controversy. The decision to try them or to not try them as an adult can change their whole life. “Fourteen states have no minimum age for trying children as adults” (Equal Justice Initiative). Some people feel that children are too immature to fully understand the severity of their actions. People who are for kids to be tried as adults feel that if they are old enough to commit the crime, then they are old enough to understand what they are doing. There are people who feel that children should only be tried as adults depending on the crime.
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.
This paper considers the desert arguments raised to support retributivism, or retribution. Retributivism is "the application of the Principle of Desert to the special case of criminal punishment." Russ Shafer-Landau and James Rachels offer very different perspectives on moral desert which ground their differing views on the appropriate response to wrongdoing. In "The Failure of Retributivism," Shafer-Landau contends that retributivism fails to function as a comprehensive theoretical foundation for the legal use of punishment. In contrast, in his article "Punishment and Desert," Rachels uses the four principles of guilt, equal treatment, proportionality and excuses to illustrate the superiority of retribution as the basis for the justice system over two alternatives: deterrence and rehabilitation. Their philosophical treatment of the term leads to divergence on the justification of legal punishment. Ultimately, Rachels offers a more compelling view of desert than Shafer-Landau and, subsequently, better justifies his endorsement of a retributive justice system.
Much controversy exists on the question of whether a juvenile criminal should be punished to the same extent as an adult. Those who commit capitol crimes, including adolescents, should be penalized according to the law. Age should not be a factor in the case of serious crimes. Many people claim that the child did not know any better, or that he was brought up with the conception that this behavior is acceptable. Although there is some truth to these allegations, the reality of this social issue is far more complex. Therefore we ask the question, "Should childhood offenders of capitols crimes be treated as adults?"
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 United States has been affected by a number of crimes committed by juveniles. The juvenile crime rate has been increasing in recent years. Everyday more juveniles commit crimes for various reasons. They act as adults when they are not officially adults. There is a discussion about how juveniles should be punished if they commit heinous crimes. While many argue that juveniles who commit serious crimes, such as murder, should be treated as adults, the fact is, juveniles under the age of eighteen, are not adults, and should not be treated as such.
ABSTRACT: Both utilitarians and the deontologists are of the opinion that punishment is justifiable, but according to the utilitarian moral thinkers, punishment can be justified solely by its consequences, while the deontologists believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive ground. D. D. Raphael is found to reconcile both views. According to him, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved. Maclagan, on the other hand, denies it to be justifiable in the sense that it is not right to punish an offender. I claim that punishment is not justifiable but not in the sense in which it is claimed by Maclagan. The aim of this paper is to prove the absurdity of the enquiry as to whether punishment can be justified. Difference results from differing interpretations of the term 'justification.' In its traditional meaning, justification can hardly be distinguished from evaluation. In this sense, to justify an act is to say that it is good or right. I differ from the traditional use and insist that no act or conduct can be justified. Infliction of punishment is a human conduct and as such it is absurd to ask for its justification. I hold the view that to justify is to give reason, and it is only a statement or an assertion behind which we can put forth reason. Infliction of pain is an act behind which the agent may have purpose or intention but not reason. So, it is not punishment, but rather statements concerning punishment that we can justify.
In all Australian legal jurisdictions, children under the age of ten are considered to be too young to have criminal intent. That means, that children under this age cannot be held legally responsible for their actions. Australia is the only region in the world to have uniform legal guidelines on the lower age limit of criminal responsibility. (Weijers, Grisso 2009 p.45). Having the presumption that children under the age of ten are unable to know the law completely, therefore not being able to have mens rea, is in my opinion, necessary in our criminal courts. This essay will look at the reasons for the necessary use of the minimum age of criminal responsibility, such as the Beijing rules, the convention
Children commit adult crimes. The problem is how do we punish them? Should they be treated in juvenile facilities, or punished with adult criminals? In some states, you are considered to be an adult at 17 years old, therefore, as criminals get placed “in adult prisons for more sophisticated training in violent crimes and victimization.”(Pg. 637)