Intent Laws: Do 5-Year-Olds Face Legal Consequences?

The age of criminal responsibility varies across jurisdictions, and the ability to form criminal intent is a key factor in determining this. In common law, children under the age of seven are generally deemed incapable of forming criminal intent and, therefore, cannot be convicted of a crime. Between the ages of seven and fourteen, there is a rebuttable presumption that the child lacks criminal intent, but this can vary depending on the child's intelligence and understanding of their actions. Above the age of fourteen, minors are often held to the same standards as adults regarding criminal intent. However, juvenile court systems are in place to handle minors under the age of sixteen to eighteen, depending on the jurisdiction. These courts focus on the supervision and rehabilitation of minors rather than criminal prosecution. The determination of criminal intent involves assessing the accused's state of mind, or mens rea, and their knowledge of wrongdoing, or scienter. While negligence is not enough to prove intent, the accused is responsible for all outcomes necessary to their overall plan, including foreseeable consequences.

Common law and infancy

Infancy is an affirmative defence that can be offered by a defendant in a criminal proceeding, stating that the defendant did not have the mens rea (or intent) necessary to be charged with a crime due to their age. In other words, the defendant was too young to possess the capacity to understand the wrongfulness of their actions. The infancy defence is typically statutory and can vary depending on the jurisdiction.

The infancy defence originated from a hesitancy to punish minors who are incapable of forming criminal intent as adults. In common law, any child under the age of seven is deemed to not have criminal liability due to their incapacity to form criminal intent. This is supported by the Model Penal Code, which states that a person shall not be tried or convicted of an offence if they were under the age of sixteen at the time of the conduct in question.

Children between the ages of seven and fourteen are considered to have a rebuttable presumption of incapacity, meaning that they are presumed to lack the mental capacity to form criminal intent. However, this presumption can be rebutted by evidence showing that the child understood the wrongfulness of their actions at the time of the offence. It is important to note that the child's actual age, rather than their mental age, will be considered in such cases.

The primary purpose of a juvenile court adjudication is rehabilitation, with the goal of reforming minors before they become adults. In most states, the infancy defence protects youthful defendants from criminal prosecution as adults, instead directing them to juvenile court. Juveniles can be prosecuted as adults under certain specified circumstances, and the prosecution can obtain a conviction by proving that the child knew their actions were wrong.

Criminal intent and age

The age of criminal responsibility is the age below which a child is deemed incapable of having committed a criminal offence. In legal terms, it is referred to as a defence of infancy, which is a form of defence that excuses defendants defined as infants from criminal liability for their actions. The terminology varies by jurisdiction and sphere; the "defence of infancy" is mainly used in the US, while the "age of criminal responsibility" is used in most European countries, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and other Commonwealth countries.

In English law, intent is defined by the ruling in R v Mohan [1976] QB 1 as "the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence". Intent is a subjective state of mind (mens rea) that must accompany the acts of certain crimes to constitute a violation. A person intends a consequence when they 1) foresee that it will happen if their given series of acts or omissions continue, and 2) desire it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test).

At early common law, criminal defendants were divided into three age groups. Those under the age of seven were deemed incapable of forming criminal intent and could not be criminally prosecuted. Defendants between the ages of seven and fourteen were presumed to lack the mental capacity to form criminal intent, but this presumption could be rebutted. Once a defendant turned fourteen, they were subject to an adult criminal prosecution. However, modern statutes have codified the adult criminal prosecution standard for different age groups, and the age of criminal responsibility varies across jurisdictions. For example, in Scotland, the Age of Criminal Responsibility (Scotland) Act 2019 raised the age of criminal responsibility from 8 to 12 years old.

The infancy defence is typically statutory and can be perfect or imperfect, depending on the jurisdiction. Juvenile court systems generally retain jurisdiction over criminal defendants under the age of sixteen, seventeen, or eighteen, with exceptions. The Model Penal Code, for instance, asserts that "a person shall not be tried for or convicted of an offence if, at the time of the conduct charged to constitute the offence, he was less than sixteen years of age".

Juvenile court systems

In criminal law, intent is a subjective state of mind that must accompany certain criminal acts. A person intends a consequence when they foresee that it will happen if their given series of acts or omissions continue, and desire it to happen.

In the context of a 5-year-old, common law dictates that those under the age of 7 are deemed incapable of forming criminal intent and, therefore, cannot be criminally prosecuted. This defence is known as the infancy defence. Juvenile court systems generally retain jurisdiction over criminal defendants under the age of 16, 17, or 18, depending on the jurisdiction.

The juvenile justice system was established to recognize that children who commit crimes are less blameworthy and have a greater capacity for change than adults. The primary purpose of a juvenile court adjudication is rehabilitation, with the goal of reforming minors before they become adults. The system has undergone significant modifications over the last 30 years, with an increase in juvenile crime rates in the late 1980s and early 1990s leading to tougher policies and an increase in youth being tried as adults.

Today, the juvenile justice system still maintains rehabilitation as its primary goal, and delinquency is typically defined as the commission of a criminal act by a child under the age of 18. Most states allow youth to remain under the supervision of the juvenile court until age 21, and judges have a range of legal options to balance the safety needs of the public with the treatment needs of the youth. However, youth may still be confined in correctional facilities that resemble adult prisons and are subject to practices like solitary confinement and strip searches.

A landmark 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision, In re Gault, determined that youth charged in juvenile court have many of the same due process rights as adults, including the right to an attorney and to confront witnesses. The Supreme Court has since extended additional rights to youth, such as the right to have charges proven beyond a reasonable doubt and the right against double jeopardy. However, a recent 50-state report found that most juvenile court systems lack adequate resources and supports to inform judicial decisions, and recommended improvements in areas such as specialized judges, data-informed decision-making, and training on adolescent development.

Parental responsibility

In criminal law, intent is a subjective state of mind (mens rea) that must accompany certain acts to constitute a crime. A person intends a consequence when they 1) foresee that it will happen if their given series of acts or omissions continue, and 2) desire it to happen.

At common law, children under the age of seven were deemed incapable of forming criminal intent and could not be criminally prosecuted. Children between the ages of seven and fourteen were presumed to lack the mental capacity to form criminal intent, but this was rebuttable. Once a child turned fourteen, they could be subject to adult criminal prosecution.

Today, many states recognize the defence of infancy, which protects youthful defendants from criminal prosecution as adults. Juvenile court systems generally retain jurisdiction over criminal defendants under the age of sixteen, seventeen, or eighteen, with exceptions. For example, in some states, parents are liable when a child between the ages of ten and eighteen "willfully, maliciously, or unlawfully" damages or burglarizes property.

Criminal prosecution

In common law jurisdictions, the defense of infancy, known as "doli incapax," asserts that children below a certain age are presumed incapable of forming criminal intent. In England, for example, the common-law presumption was that children under the age of seven were incapable of committing a crime. This presumption was conclusive, meaning the prosecution could not argue that the child understood the nature and wrongfulness of their actions.

However, in some jurisdictions, the age threshold is different. For instance, in the United States, the juvenile court system generally has jurisdiction over individuals under the age of sixteen, seventeen, or eighteen, with some states setting the minimum age at fourteen. Below these age thresholds, it is typically presumed that the individual lacks the mental capacity to form criminal intent, and they are adjudicated in juvenile court rather than facing adult criminal prosecution.

The rationale behind the age of accountability laws is similar to that of the insanity defense, suggesting that both the mentally disabled and the very young lack the capacity to understand the wrongfulness of their actions. The phrase "age of criminal responsibility" is used to describe the process of exempting children from the adult system of prosecution and punishment. Most jurisdictions develop separate juvenile justice systems, where hearings focus on the welfare of the child and aim to provide treatment and care rather than criminalize them.

While there is no universally agreed-upon minimum age for criminal responsibility, the general consensus is that young children below a certain age should not be subject to criminal prosecution. This is based on the understanding that they lack the maturity, judgment, and knowledge to be held fully accountable for their actions. However, it is important to note that, in some jurisdictions, the absence of a set minimum age gives discretion to prosecutors and judges to argue whether the child defendant understood the difference between right and wrong.

Frequently asked questions