A Stitch in Haste

I guess I need to revive my old "Kids in Cuffs" chain of posts:

Takovia Allen suffers from behavioral problems and attends a special class at Lely Elementary in Naples.

According to an arrest report, on May 2, a teacher was trying to line up students to go to music class. Takovia refused to go and kicked the teacher's aide in the ankle. After a discussion among school officials and two law enforcement officials called to the school, the girl was arrested.

Takovia was taken to juvenile jail and held there for several hours before being released to her mother. She is being charged with battery on a public education employee.

It's possible she will enter a program that includes counseling. If she completes the program successfully the charges could be dropped.

Yesterday I blogged about the age of majority. Apparently we need to revisit the age of infancy as well.

The Model Penal Code suggests that it is impossible for a child under the age of seven to commit a crime (Section 3.1.6). The reasoning is quite simple: Almost all crimes (including "battery on a public education employee") require a wrongful mental state -- a criminal intent or "mens rea." Without criminal intent, there can be no crime. Just as an unconscious person cannot form criminal intent, so too are young children unable to form criminal intent. Children simply do not think the way adults do, and they can therefore not be held to the same standards of conduct that we hold competent adults. How can this possibly be a difficult concept?

We don't even hold children to the same standard of negligence as adults: When a six-year old child causes damage we don't ask "How would a reasonable person behave under the circumstances?" but rather "How would a reasonable six-year old behave under the circumstances?" How can we not afford the same relaxation of the standards in a criminal context? And even most laypersons know the rule that a minor, even a 17-year old, is generally not bound by her contracts. The rules for kids are different. Again, how can this possibly be a difficult concept?

This is not the same as debating the cut-off age between juvenile court and regular criminal court. This is about recognizing the simple truth that very young children cannot think like adults. They do not fully understand right and wrong, they do not recognize the concept of deterrence and cannot foresee the consequences of their impulsive actions. This is zero tolerance throwing a temper tantrum. Due process simply demands that the very young be exempt from the traditional criminal justice system. The proper response by society is counseling and rehabilitation, not kids in cuffs.

There simply must be an age below which there can be no question of arrest or prosecution. Maybe it's seven, maybe it's ten, maybe it's thirteen.

But it sure as heck isn't six.