Many states recognize the defense of infancy. Infancy asserts that the defendant is not subject to criminal prosecution because he or she is too young to commit a crime. The policy supporting the infancy defense is the belief that juvenile defendants are too immature to form criminal intent (this is the same logic that underpins the idea that a victim cannot consent to a statutory rape).
Despite the ancient common law origins of the doctrine, the modern infancy defense is mostly statutory and can be perfect or imperfect, depending on the state. Be sure to note that the legal concept of an infant is far broader in scope than the everyday use of the word. Anyone under the legal age of majority can potentially be an “infant” under this doctrine.
Modern Trends
The trend today is to consider anyone under the age of 18 as a juvenile. States divide up the jurisdiction of criminal defendants between juvenile courts and adult courts. Juvenile court systems generally retain jurisdiction over criminal defendants under the age of sixteen, seventeen, or eighteen, depending on the state. Most states now have exceptions to this general rule, allowing for the waiver of juveniles to adult court when crimes are regarded as especially heinous. The Model Penal Code specifies that “a person shall not be tried for or convicted of an offense if: (a) at the time of the conduct charged to constitute the offense he was less than sixteen years of age. When the offender is under the age of 16, the MPC specifies that the juvenile court shall have exclusive jurisdiction. Because of rules regarding which court will have jurisdiction, the defense of infancy is rarely raised as a defense per se. It is built into the procedural law of each jurisdiction.
Infancy Under Ancient Common Law
In the annals of ancient common law, the treatment of criminal defendants was deeply intertwined with their age, leading to the formulation of distinct age categories to determine criminal responsibility. This systematic division was based on an understanding of mental and emotional development associated with different age groups.
The youngest group, those under the age of seven, held a special status in this legal landscape. The prevailing legal doctrine of the time unambiguously asserted that individuals in this age bracket lacked the capability to form criminal intent. Given this deeply ingrained belief, the ancient common law provided a protective umbrella over these young souls, ensuring they were shielded from criminal prosecution, regardless of their actions.
Transitioning from this protective age bracket, those between the ages of seven and fourteen found themselves in a more nuanced legal space. This age group was not entirely exempted from potential culpability. Instead, the law granted them a rebuttable presumption. This meant that while the initial assumption was that they lacked the mental faculties to form criminal intent, evidence to the contrary could challenge and overturn this presumption, subjecting them to the possibility of criminal proceedings.
However, upon reaching the age of fourteen, the protective veils of youth were stripped away. Individuals who had attained this age were ushered into the realm of adult legal responsibility. The ancient common law perceived them as fully capable of understanding the ramifications of their actions. As a result, they could be, and often were, subjected to the full force of adult criminal prosecution.
In contemporary times, the transition from ancient legal traditions to modern statutes has seen the codification of age-based standards for criminal prosecution. Interestingly, several states still retain traces of the ancient common law in their legal systems. They continue to operate using both rebuttable and irrebuttable presumption schemes, meticulously crafted based on the age of the offender.
Yet, the decision to prosecute a young individual as an adult is not made lightly, even in modern times. The gravity of such a choice necessitates an in-depth analysis of multiple factors. Legal systems today commonly weigh the nature and gravity of the alleged offense, the level of sophistication and premeditation it might have demanded, the defendant’s prior run-ins with the law, and, importantly, the potential threat they might pose to broader public safety. Such considerations ensure that age, while important, is but one of several determinants in the complex matrix of justice.
Term of Art: Waiver
When a juvenile court has jurisdiction in a case, that jurisdiction must be relinquished if the juvenile is to be prosecuted as an adult. This process is called a waiver. Juvenile courts can have exclusive jurisdiction over minors under eighteen, or concurrent or simultaneous jurisdiction with adult courts, depending on the state. States vary as to the particulars of the waiver procedure. Some states allow judges to use discretion in granting the waiver, while others grant this power to the prosecutor.
References and Further Reading
- “Excuse: Theory.” Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice
- “Insanity Defense.” West’s Encyclopedia of American Law.
- “The Insanity Defense Among the States.” Findlaw.
- “M’Naghten Rule.” West’s Encyclopedia of American Law.
- “Durham Rule.” West’s Encyclopedia of American Law.
- “Excuse: Duress.” Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice.
- “Excuse: Intoxication.” Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice.
- “Mistake of Fact.” West’s Encyclopedia of American Law.
- “Mistake of Law.” West’s Encyclopedia of American Law.
- “Entrapment.” Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice.
Cases
- Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985)
- Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (1996)
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966)
- Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540 (1992)
Modification History File Created: 07/17/2018 Last Modified: 09/28/2023
This work is licensed under an Open Educational Resource-Quality Master Source (OER-QMS) License.
