Doli Incapax

* 2. newly-discovered evidence which, if introduced at the trial, would probably have produced a

During In re Winship (1970), it was determined that juveniles, just like adults, are entitled to “beyond a reasonable doubt” during the adjudication process. It was also decided that “preponderance of evidence” was not enough to gain a conviction when it came to juveniles being charged with criminal offenses an adult could commit. Both In re Winship (1970) and In re Gault (1967) were designed to

This event was a very unfortunate tragedy, although it was used as an opportunity to create a new legal precedent which determines whether or not a child can be convicted for crimes though to be classified as an ‘adult crime’, for example, manslaughter. Doli incapax, assumes that any child aged 10-14 is incapable of criminal intent unless proven otherwise.

Now a day’s evidence can change a person’s life in the blink of an eye. “People were often punished for crimes based on the word of one or two individuals, with little concern given to sorting out the truth of the affair” (Hunter 12). But today a person must be tried and some physical evidence is needed in order for a person to be convicted of a crime.

1. In a criminal trial, the defendant must be proven guilty by a preponderance of the evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt?

There’s concern that Hermionne Romeo, is not properly caring for her daughter, Ashante Saint Val (17). The mother kicked the child out of the home, and will not allow the child to return. The child was having chest pain and is self-mutilating. The mother refuses to take the child to the doctor and to provide legal documentation to Ms. Aarons (caretaker). The child has not been in school due to being expelled for missing too many days of school.

Cristian’s mother, Biannela Susana, had left him and his two year old half brother, David, home alone. In the article “Cristian Fernandez,13-year-old Fla. boy, faces life in prison for allegedly murdering his 2-year-old half-brother” by Crimesider Staff states, “the toddler had a fractured skull, bruising to his left eye and a bleeding brain”(Staff) which indicated that Cristian had harmed/ beated his baby brother. Cristian had a rough childhood. His mother was only 12 when she had him, his “grandmother was taking care of him was holded up with cocaine in a motel room”(Staff), he was beaten by his stepfather, and sexually assaulted by a cousin. So he didn't have anyone. He was alone in this big world with no one to protect him or look after him. It was inevitable for him to kill someone. Cristian should be charged as an adult since he did murder a two year old however, he was emotionally and physically hurt and abused which must have played a factor him to kill his brother. Therefore, he shouldn't get life in prison but he should serve time. The article also illustrates that before the murder of David, Cristian had previously broke the 2 year-old's leg while wrestling. This should have set an alarm to the mother and keep an eye on both of them. The article states, “Cristian denied any plans or intent to kill his brother...a ‘flashback’ of the abuse by his stepfather as the motive for this

Doli Incapax however, doesn’t end once a young person reaches the age of 10. From the ages of 10-14 it is a common law presumption that a minor does not possess the necessary knowledge to have a criminal intention. This is known as a rebuttable presumption. This presumption lies in favour of the young person just as if they were under the age of 10, however, the other party can rebut it if they are able to show sufficient evidence to disprove this. This can be done a fair few ways. One of the ways to rebut Doli Incapax is by looking at the young persons criminal record. Previous offences that are linked to the present offence (e.g. robbery and assault) can be used to rebut Doli Incapax. Another way to rebut Doli Incapax is by interviewing the young person. This must be done so however, in the presence of an adult, if it not, the evidence may be inadmissible in court. The interview process will involve a police officer questioning the juvenile about their knowledge of the offence. If the juvenile admits they were aware that the offence was a criminal matter, Doli Incapax is rebutted. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) supports this idea of the age of criminal responsibility and Australia has ratified legislations proposed referring to this idea. The Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) lays out the minimum age of criminal responsibility, although there are occasional debates within the public to reduce this age. Doli Incapax is

What does the prosecution need to prove in the courtroom for a person to be convicted of a criminal offence? (2 marks)

In its brief, the government asserted that the question of whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction “does not turn on the content of jury instructions.” Rather, the sufficiency of the evidence standard is made with reference to an accurate understanding of the elements required for a conviction. As such, a conviction should be upheld if “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” At the federal level, these elements are defined by Congress, meaning that an erroneous jury instruction should have “no effect on sufficiency analysis.” Thus, the government contended that its failure to object to an erroneous jury instruction should not have any impact on whether the elements as defined by Congress supported a finding of guilt.

Allowed a child of any age to face trial as an adult if the child already have been convicted of two or more felonies.

The use of moving a child from the Juvenal Court system and placing them in the Adult Court system to stand trial for criminal offenses as an adult in a judicial process that has been happening, more and more, in the United States over the past 40 years (Kilkelly, 2016). The criminal charges that have faced the young offenders under the age of 18 moving them to receive harsh punishments from the Adult Court Systems in the United States are crimes such as rape, murder, and drug offenses just to name a few of them (Kilkelly, 2016).

“if (1) the defendant was at least eighteen years old at the time the defendant committed

Second, we must look at the affects of being a witness not only on the legal system but also on the child as an individual. Children could be further traumatized emotionally and physically by involvement as a witness. Finally, we need to closely look at how the legal system is set up and how well children fit into this system. Are witness procedures set up in a way that children can understand and accurately give their testimony? These are the things that need to be looked at closely to determine if children can be reliable and credible witnesses in court.

There are many tangible circumstances that tend to prove or disprove some facts in all criminal or civil cases. Under rule 41(b) “A warrant may be issued under this rule to search for and seize any (1) property that constitutes evidence of the commission of a criminal offenses; or (2) contraband, the fruits of a crime, or things otherwise criminally possessed; or (3) property designed or intended for use or which is or has been used as the means of committing a criminal offense; or (4) person for whose arrest there is probable cause, or who is unlawfully restrained” (John N. Ferdico, 1999). Evidence is one of the single most important pieces of a criminal trial. It is used to determine a defendant’s guilt or innocence.