Key Takeaways

  • The infancy defense is rooted in common law, which presumed children lacked the capacity to form criminal intent.
  • Children under seven were irrebuttably presumed incapable of intent, while those between seven and fourteen were presumed incapable unless strong evidence proved otherwise.
  • U.S. statutes now separate adult and juvenile systems, with most states barring prosecution of very young children and routing others into juvenile courts.
  • Modern courts often reject infancy defenses in juvenile proceedings since juvenile systems were designed as the substitute for adult prosecution.
  • The infancy defense remains relevant in transfer hearings, serious felony cases, and debates over the moral culpability of minors.

The Infancy Defense

Infancy is a criminal defense, descended from British common law, that attempts to disprove liability for a crime by reason of the defendant's very young age. Under the assumption that minors are incapable of forming criminal intention the same manner as adults, the common law infancy defense traditionally bars the prosecution of children under the age of seven for crimes and presumptively precludes the prosecution of children aged seven to fourteen years under the adult criminal law system. Contemporary statutes in United States criminal law, however, hold that children in the latter age group are eligible for prosecution through the juvenile justice system.

Historical Development of the Infancy Defense

The infancy defense originated in English common law, where children were divided into age brackets that determined their criminal liability. Under this system:

  • Children under seven were considered entirely without legal capacity (doli incapax).
  • Children between seven and fourteen were presumed incapable but could be prosecuted if evidence showed they understood the wrongfulness of their actions.
  • Those fourteen and older were generally held to adult standards.

This framework influenced early U.S. criminal law and remains a reference point for states determining the threshold age of criminal responsibility.

Infancy Defense and the Moral Understanding of Children

The infancy defense operates under the idea that children cannot be prosecuted as adults because they lack the emotional and cognitive maturity to understand the moral nature of their actions. At common law, children under the age of seven were held to be doli incapax, or irrebuttably incapable of forming criminal intent, while children between seven and fourteen were presumed such, though this presumption might be rebutted if very strong evidence was presented to show that the child held a moral understanding of his actions. The infancy defense at common law intended to strike a balance between the impropriety of punishing minors who are not responsible for their actions, and the dangers of categorically immunizing young people from prosecution, thus allowing them opportunity to commit serious crimes with impunity.

Policy Rationale Behind the Infancy Defense

The infancy defense reflects both moral and practical concerns. Legislators and courts recognize that children lack the same judgment, foresight, and impulse control as adults. Punishing them as if they had full adult capacity undermines justice. At the same time, lawmakers are wary of creating immunity that could encourage exploitation of minors in committing crimes. Thus, the defense attempts to balance protection of children with accountability when they demonstrate an ability to understand the consequences of their actions.

United States Adult and Juvenile Justice System

Statutory legislation in the United States has largely superceded the common law infancy defense through the establishment of a dual adult/juvenile justice system. Children under a certain age, usually between sixteen and eighteen depending on the state, are eligible for prosecution in a more lenient and rehabilitation-oriented juvenile justice system, while most states strictly bar the prosecution of very young children (usually under seven, though some states hold the age limit at ten.)

State Variations in Infancy Defense Standards

While the juvenile system has largely replaced the common law infancy defense, states differ significantly in their statutory rules:

  • Minimum age thresholds: Some states set the minimum age of criminal responsibility at 7, others at 10, while a few allow cases as young as 6.
  • Juvenile vs. adult prosecution: States allow transfer to adult court in severe cases (such as violent felonies) if prosecutors show the child comprehended their conduct.
  • Judicial discretion: Judges may consider psychological evaluations, school records, and testimony from parents or experts to determine whether the presumption of incapacity is rebutted.

These differences highlight how the infancy defense interacts with broader juvenile justice policy.

Infancy Defense in Juvenile Court Cases

This pattern roughly mirrors original common law infancy defense. However, it does leave a question as to the place of the infancy defense in juvenile court proceedings. While there are a few exceptions, most courts in the United States have declared that the infancy defense has no place in cases of juvenile delinquency because this defense was intended to prevent minors from being prosecuted in adult courts, not juvenile courts. Furthermore, under a broad assumption that children today are more self-aware and self-determining than they were in the past, courts are increasingly finding evidence of real criminal intent in juvenile delinquents, often justifying the transfer of the young defendant to the jurisdiction of adult criminal courts.

Modern Limitations and Practical Applications

Today, many courts have ruled that the infancy defense does not apply in juvenile proceedings, since those courts were created precisely to address youthful offenders in a more rehabilitative framework. However, the defense may still play a role in:

  • Transfer hearings, where the court decides if a juvenile should be tried as an adult.
  • Serious felony cases, where prosecutors argue the child had adult-like awareness of their actions.
  • Policy debates, especially around very young offenders and whether they should be subject to the juvenile system at all.

In practice, most juveniles are presumed capable of criminal intent once they reach the statutory minimum age, and courts increasingly emphasize rehabilitation rather than technical defenses.

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. What is the infancy defense in criminal law?
    It is a defense that argues minors cannot be held criminally responsible due to their young age and lack of capacity to form intent.
  2. At what age does the infancy defense apply?
    Traditionally under seven years old, but states vary. Many set the minimum age of criminal responsibility between six and ten.
  3. Does the infancy defense apply in juvenile court?
    Generally no. Juvenile courts were designed to replace the infancy defense by handling youth differently than adults.
  4. Can children ever be tried as adults despite infancy rules?
    Yes. In serious cases, courts may transfer juveniles to adult court if prosecutors show the child understood their actions.
  5. Why is the infancy defense controversial today?
    Some argue it is outdated because juvenile courts already account for age, while others believe it is still needed to protect very young children from unfair prosecution.

If you need help identifying lectl the infancy defense criminal defense, you can post your legal need on UpCounsel’s marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.