Assessing Serious Harm Under the Doctrine of<i>Doli Incapax</i>: A Case Study

Lennings, Nicholas; Lennings, C. J.

doi:10.1080/13218719.2014.894902

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This system measures the capacity to commit a crime not so much in terms of age as in terms of the understanding and judgment of the juvenile offender ( Blackstone, 1966 ). Faced with criminal cases, juveniles below the minimum age of criminal responsibility (we encouraged legislators firstly to set a relatively higher age of criminal responsibility) can be pursued if the prosecution can provide the court with a “very clear and complete evidence” that the accused knew what they were doing was “seriously wrong” (or presumed to have mens rea)( Van Krieken, 2013 ; Lennings and Lennings, 2014 ). This necessitates a professionally qualified person to assess young children’s capacity for criminal responsibility, including their cognitive, moral, emotional, psychological, and social growth [South African, Child Justice Act 75 of 2008, s11(2),(3)].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychometric Challenges in the Measurement of Constructs Underlying Criminal Responsibility in Children and Young Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study

Shang

et al. 2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At present, many countries have lowered the minimum age of criminal responsibility to deal with the trend of juvenile crime. In practical terms, whether countries advocate for lowering the age of criminal responsibility along with early puberty, or regulating the minimum age of juvenile criminal responsibility through their policies, their deep-rooted hypothesis is that age is tied to adolescents’ psychological growth, and, with the rise in age, the capacity for dialectical thinking, self-control, and empathy gradually improves. With this study, we aimed to test whether this hypothesis is valid. The participants were 3,208 students from junior high school, senior high school, and freshman in the S province of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). We subjected the gathered materials to independent-samples t-tests, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), linear regression analysis, and Bonferroni post hoc test. The influence of the age variable upon dialectical thinking, self-control, and empathy was significant (p = 0.002, p = 0.000, p = 0.072), but only empathy was positively correlated with age variable (B = 0.032); dialectical thinking ability (B = −0.057), and self-control ability (B = −0.212) were negatively correlated with the age variable. Bonferroni post hoc test confirmed these findings. Therefore, we concluded the following: (1) Juvenile criminal responsibility, based on the capacity for dialectical thinking, self-control, and empathy, is not positively correlated with age. (2) Age is not the only basis on which to judge a juvenile’s criminal responsibility. (3) More research that directly links age differences in brain structure and function to age differences in legally relevant capacities and capabilities(e.g., dialectical thinking, self-control, and empathy) is needed. (4) Political countries should appropriately raise the minimum age of criminal responsibility and adopt the doli incapax principle in the judicial process.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychometric Challenges in the Measurement of Constructs Underlying Criminal Responsibility in Children and Young Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study

Shang

et al. 2022

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sir William Blackstone commented some four centuries later that the 'capacity of doing ill, or contracting guilt, is not so much measured in years and days, as by the strength of the delinquent's understanding and judgement (Morrison, 2001)'. Simply put, a child's chronological age is not necessarily a reflection of their mental age (Lennings & Lennings, 2014). Such understanding of child development is recognised in literature and judicial commentary today.…”

Section: Doli Incapax Presumption: 10-13 Yearsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Children of all ages are capable of suffering from one or more of these risk factors and lacking one or more protective factors at any given time. Children aged 14 years or older, however, are not afforded the chance to have these factors considered at the outset of the criminal justice process despite the fact that children's development and experience in life are widely varied and these factors may have contributed to their understanding of their offending conduct (Lennings & Lennings, 2014).…”

Section: Full Standard Of Criminal Responsibility For Childrenmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In Part III, we identify some of the key problems with holding children fully responsible for criminal offending and highlight the need for reform in this space to protect children from the harms of interaction with the criminal justice system. It is an erroneous assumption that all children aged 14 years and over possess the capacity to understand right from wrong in a criminal context; and what is more, that they can appreciate the moral underpinnings which characterise criminal behaviour (Lennings & Lennings, 2014). In fact, contemporary neuroscience research suggests that children are not as ‘psychosocially mature as adults in ways that affect their decision‐making in antisocial situations …’ (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000) This includes a proclivity to value short‐term outcomes over long‐term ones, an inability to view things from other peoples' perspectives, and a difficulty restraining impulses of aggression (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000).…”

Section: Full Standard Of Criminal Responsibility For Childrenmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Criminal responsibility of older children: The failings of doli incapax in Australia

Tuomi

Moritz

2023

Children & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Criminal law balances community protection from children who commit criminal offences against supporting children to behave appropriately. Existing Australian law applies the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax to children from 10 years of age and then applies full criminal responsibility to children from 14 years of age. Imposing full criminal responsibility on older children is problematic because it does not account for their cognitive development, social and environmental risk factors and maturity. Extending doli incapax to older children is one response to address the challenges of older children's criminal culpability but it does not go far enough to protect children from the harms of the criminal justice system.

show abstract

“…The doctrine of doli incapax has found expression in the provisions of the statutes of different countries including Nigeria through the introduction of the minimum age of criminal responsibility which varies from one country to another, but ensures that children below a particular age range cannot be held liable for certain criminal behaviours. The defence has been held to be anchored on a principle of public policy which seeks to safeguard the interests of a child especially where such child cannot appreciate the quality and implications of his/her actions (Lennings, 2013). Professor Hart towing a similar pattern of logic commented that:…”

Section: The History and Jurisprudence Of The Doctrine Of Doli Incapaxmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a Legislative Reform of the Doctrine of Doli Incapax Under the Nigerian Criminal Code Act

2020

JLPG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The New King James Version of the Holy Bible states in Proverbs 22:15 that, 'foolishness is bound in the heart of a child, but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him'. When a child due to this inherent folly that pervades his heart, commits a wrong, some of the pertinent questions that may be asked include: Should such child be punished for the wrong committed? How can it be established that the child asides having demonstrated a guilty act had, at the time of the commission of the wrong, a guilty mind? These are some of the questions which this paper attempts to answer while examining criminal responsibility of children in the Nigerian legal system with a careful consideration of Section 30 of the Criminal Code Act which provides for the defence of immature age, otherwise known as the doctrine of doli incapax. In its analysis, this paper submits that although the inclusion of a statutory provision for the defence of immature age in the Criminal Code Act is quite laudable, there are some inconsistencies inherent in the tripartite provisions of Section 30 of the Criminal Code which do not conform to the dictates of logic, common sense and the realities of the Nigerian society. Thus, comparing the Criminal Code with the Penal Code of Northern Nigeria, this paper suggests that there is an urgent need for a legislative amendment of Section 30 of the Criminal Code.

show abstract

Assessing Serious Harm Under the Doctrine ofDoli Incapax: A Case Study

Cited by 6 publications

References 10 publications

Psychometric Challenges in the Measurement of Constructs Underlying Criminal Responsibility in Children and Young Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study

Psychometric Challenges in the Measurement of Constructs Underlying Criminal Responsibility in Children and Young Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study

Criminal responsibility of older children: The failings of doli incapax in Australia

Towards a Legislative Reform of the Doctrine of Doli Incapax Under the Nigerian Criminal Code Act

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About