There is currently much discussion occurring about the above topic in legal circles - the federal Attorney-General commissioned an inquiry into it a few months ago and the panel has come back saying basically, yes it should be changed.
www.sbs.com.au
Doli incapax is a doctrine in criminal law that says a child cannot commit a crime because they are unable to form the requisite intent. This is based on the assumption that whilst young children may know that certain things are naughty or forbidden, they lack a properly-developed understanding of right and wrong in a moral or reasonable sense.
The law in Australia currently says that doli incapax applies to all children under 10 (who cannot be prosecuted for a crime), and exists as a rebuttable presumption for children aged 10-14. 'Rebuttable presumption' means that the Crown has the opportunity to bring the case to court and try to prove that the child did in fact understand what they were doing. In practice, this bar is not particularly high and prosecutors have generally not had much trouble meeting it.
This is out of step with many countries, who have a flat minimum age of 12 or more. 12 is regarded as the minimum acceptable age by the UN Committee for Rights of the Child.
Advocates in Australia would like us to be brought into line with the rest of the world by making the minimum age a flat 14 - not necessarily because they believe that 14 year olds cannot form intent, but more because they believe that prosecuting a 10-14 year old is not the best way to manage their behaviour. A range of evidence does appear to bear this out.
How do you feel about this proposal?
Personally I am conflicted. There are plenty of examples of children aged 10-14 committing horrendous acts with full knowledge and intent, and it feels wrong that they may escape punishment. However studies make it quite clear that early intervention with troubled kids is critical when it comes to steering them away from a life of crime, and sending them to gaol is one of the worst things you can do.
Pressure to lift the minimum age at which children can be sent to jail
Attorneys-general are under pressure to change the minimum age of criminal responsibility, which is considered far too low.
Doli incapax is a doctrine in criminal law that says a child cannot commit a crime because they are unable to form the requisite intent. This is based on the assumption that whilst young children may know that certain things are naughty or forbidden, they lack a properly-developed understanding of right and wrong in a moral or reasonable sense.
The law in Australia currently says that doli incapax applies to all children under 10 (who cannot be prosecuted for a crime), and exists as a rebuttable presumption for children aged 10-14. 'Rebuttable presumption' means that the Crown has the opportunity to bring the case to court and try to prove that the child did in fact understand what they were doing. In practice, this bar is not particularly high and prosecutors have generally not had much trouble meeting it.
This is out of step with many countries, who have a flat minimum age of 12 or more. 12 is regarded as the minimum acceptable age by the UN Committee for Rights of the Child.
Advocates in Australia would like us to be brought into line with the rest of the world by making the minimum age a flat 14 - not necessarily because they believe that 14 year olds cannot form intent, but more because they believe that prosecuting a 10-14 year old is not the best way to manage their behaviour. A range of evidence does appear to bear this out.
How do you feel about this proposal?
Personally I am conflicted. There are plenty of examples of children aged 10-14 committing horrendous acts with full knowledge and intent, and it feels wrong that they may escape punishment. However studies make it quite clear that early intervention with troubled kids is critical when it comes to steering them away from a life of crime, and sending them to gaol is one of the worst things you can do.
Last edited:
