No matter how young the holder of a gun is, a discharged bullet will always be equally lethal but whether or not a crime has been committed will depend on the age of the shooter. This is the main premise of the concept of defense by infancy where the facts of the case are overridden by the inability of the person who committed not to have achieved the age of criminal liability. Whereas this age of infancy may vary in different jurisdictions, 2-6 years is deemed to be the general age of infancy (Berger, 2011). Many factors bear upon the concept of defence by infancy. These include the fact that for a child below the age of 6 may not comprehend the outcome of their action and should therefore be constantly chaperoned. Further, influence by environmental factors will have an overwhelming control on the behavior of a child as it will not be able to resist this influence (Berger, 2011). When a child below the age of 6 performs an act that would normally be considered a crime, it would be more logical to place the blame around the child and not within it.
Biosocial Argument for this Policy
One of the fundamental concepts of avoidance of crime is based on the concept of ‘think before you act’. This creates the impression that whether or not an act is right or wrong is not natural. One has to consider the action itself and its consequences before making a determination on whether or not it is right or wrong (Berger, 2011). Further, not all right things are legal and not all wrong things are illegal. Indeed, there have been arguments about some laws supporting wrongs and prohibiting rights. The ability to adhere to the law therefore calls for an advanced level of both knowledge and understanding. The brain of a child below six years is only mature enough to understand very basic things such as integers and the alphabet. It is impossible for such a child to ‘think before they act’ by considering the legal implications of their actions. They can therefore not be held legally accountable for their actions.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Cognitive Argument for this Policy
The cognitive argument focuses more on the acts themselves than the law that the acts breaks. For example, shoving someone in the middle of a field is an act of play but shoving someone from on top of a skyscraper is an act of murder. This kind of understanding does not occur naturally and takes a cognitive process of gathering information and processing it into knowledge (Berger, 2011). For a person to be liable for a crime, they must be able to understand the consequences and outcomes of the actions they take. This capacity tales time and cannot be achieved by normal children below the age of 6. Indeed, at this age, most children consider the world as a large playfield and everything in it including fire, knives and guns as toys. The inability to differentiate between reality and play therefore creates an automatic defense for infants premised on the cognitive inability (Berger, 2011).
Defense from an Emotional and/or Social Development Perspective
Emotions develop at a very young age and even a small infant will have emotional reactions such as yelling, crying and throwing tantrums. Social-emotional development however entails an understanding of how to handle and manage emotions with relation to the immediate environment. It also entails an understanding of the implications of expressing the raw emotions at different times and places (Berger, 2011). Many people curse out loudly in private and even strike at things when their emotions get the better of them. The very same individuals will control the very same emotions and internalize them in public because they understand the implications thereof. Emotional control is an active not a passive process that has to be developed. A child below 6 years old will not know how to react to raw emotions and will act as they feel in spite of their environment (Berger, 2011). They can therefore not be held to account because of this level of immaturity which is only natural.
The Spiritual Development Argument
Most proponents of punishment for children use scripture to support their argument. Proverbs 13:24 about sparing the rod and spoiling the child as well as Deuteronomy 21: 18-21 are commonly cited. Both scriptures however do not indicate a specific age for a child and common definition of the bible places even teenagers and young adults within the age bracket of children. Further, Deuteronomy 21 creates the impression of a child who has been warned repeatedly but would not listen. Clearly, this is a child who is older than the age of 21. Therefore, albeit scripture seems to support the idea of punishing child crime, it does not indicate or imply that punishment be meted below the age of 6 years or when a child is too young to comprehend what they are doing (Berger, 2011).
Conclusion
It is clear from the foregoing that irrespective of how adverse the acts of a child between 2 and 6 years are, it does not amount to a crime. All the arguments above support this contention but the argument relating to the cognitive development of the child is the most compelling. This is because majority of the acts and omissions by a child that would result in a crime being committed emanate from blameless inadvertence. This is based on the inability to understand the implications of seemingly ordinary actions such as throwing a stone or shoving a friend. Laws are meant to protect and little children should be protected from being unfairly punished from their actions which result in crimes because they are not able to appreciate the implications thereof.
Reference
Berger, K. S. (2011). The developing person through the life span - 8th edition (8th ed.). New York: Worth Publishers Inc.,U.S.
