The defense of infancy is a form of defense known as an excuse so that defendants falling within the definition of an "infant" are excluded from criminal liability for their actions, if at the relevant time, they had not reached an age of criminal responsibility. After reaching the initial age, there may be levels of responsibility dictated by age and the type of offense allegedly committed.
Such policies do not necessarily reflect modern sensibilities. On the one hand, the modern reality is that some very young children have a greater understanding of the world than the seven-year-old children of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when the initial decisions to excuse were made. Thus, if the rationale of the excuse is that children below a certain age lack the capacity to form the mens rea of an offense, this may no longer be a sustainable argument. Indeed, given the different speeds at which people may develop both physically and intellectually, any form of explicit age limit may be arbitrary and irrational. Yet, the sense that children do not deserve to be exposed to criminal punishment in the same way as adults remains strong. Children have not had experience of life, nor do they have the same mental and intellectual capacities as adults. Hence, it might be considered unfair to treat young children in the same way as adults.
In Scotland the age of responsibility is eight years, In England and Wales and Northern Ireland the age of responsibility is ten years and in the Netherlands and Canada, the age of responsibility is twelve years. Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Norway all set the age at fifteen years. In most of the US states, the age is either sixteen or eighteen years. In Belgium, it is eighteen years. As the treaty parties of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court could not agree on a minimum age for criminal responsibility, they chose to solve the question procedurally and excluded the jurisdiction of the Court for persons under 18 years.
Some states refuse to set a fixed minimum age, but leave discretion to prosecutors to argue or the judges to rule on whether the child or adolescent ("juvenile") defendant understood that what was being done was wrong. If the defendant did not understand the difference between right and wrong, it may not be considered appropriate to treat such a person as culpable. Alternatively, the lack of real fault in the offender can be recognized by rulings that dispense mitigated criminal sentences or address more practical matters of parental responsibility by adjusting the rights of parents to unsupervised custody, or by separate criminal proceedings against the parents for breach of their duties as parents.
The following are the minimum ages at which children are subject to penal law in countries with 10 million or more children under 18 years old.
| Country | Age |
|---|---|
| Mexico | 6-12* |
| Bangladesh | 7 |
| India | 7 |
| Myanmar | 7 |
| Nigeria | 7 |
| Pakistan | 7 |
| South Africa | 7 |
| Sudan | 7 |
| Tanzania | 7 |
| Thailand | 7 |
| United States | 7** |
| Country | Age |
|---|---|
| Indonesia | 8 |
| Kenya | 8 |
| UK (Scotland) | 8 |
| Ethiopia | 9 |
| Iran | 9*** |
| Philippines | 9 |
| Nepal | 10 |
| UK (England) | 10 |
| UK (Wales) | 10 |
| Ukraine | 10 |
| Country | Age |
|---|---|
| Turkey | 11 |
| Korea, Rep. | 12 |
| Morocco | 12 |
| Uganda | 12 |
| Algeria | 13 |
| France | 13 |
| Poland | 13 |
| Uzbekistan | 13 |
| China | 14 |
| Germany | 14 |
| Country | Age |
|---|---|
| Italy | 14 |
| Japan | 14 |
| Russia | 14 |
| Vietnam | 14 |
| Egypt | 15 |
| Argentina | 16 |
| Brazil | 18**** |
| Colombia | 18**** |
| Peru | 18**** |
| DR Congo | - |
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
It uses material from the
"Defense of infancy".
Home Page • arts • business • computers • games • health • hospitals • home • kids & teens • news • physicians • recreation• reference • regional • science • shopping • society • sports • world