U87 asked in 社會與文化語言 · 1 decade ago


At common law, children below the age of 7 were conclusively presumed to be incapable of committing crime, and children over the age of 14 were presumed capable and treated as adults. Children between these ages were rebuttably presumed incapable of committing crime. Washington codified these presumptions amending the age of conclusive incapacity to 7, and presumed capacity to 12 years of age.

Capacity is similar to the mental element of a specific crime or offense, it is not an element of the offense, but is rather a general determination that the individual understood the act and its wrongfulness.

The standard of proof to be applied in involuntary commitment proceedings offers guidance: The burden of proof should be by clear, cogent and convincing evidence.

The long-standing law in Washington that proof of possession of recently stolen property is not prima facie evidence of burglary unless accompanied by other evidence of guilt. Other evidence of guilt may include a false or improbable explanation of possession, flight, use of a fictitious name, or the presence of the accused near the scene of the crime.

1 Answer

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    在普通的法律,孩子在 7 歲下面決定性地被假定判決犯罪是無能力的,而且孩子在 14 歲之上被假定有能力的而且對待如成人。 在這些年齡之間的孩子可反駁地被假定無能力的判決犯罪 .在這些年齡之間的孩子可反駁地被假定無能力的判決犯罪。 華盛頓編成法典了這些推測修正決定性無能的年齡到 7, 而且假定對 12 歲的能力。


    證明的標準被在自然而然的承諾程序提議指導方面應用: 證明的負擔應該是藉著清楚的﹐有說服力的和有力證據。

    在最近偷的財產所有物的證明不是入屋竊盜的主要 facie 證據的華盛頓的持久法律除非被其他對於罪行的證據陪伴。 其他對於罪行的證據可能包括在犯罪的現場附近的一種所有物,飛行的錯誤或未必然解釋,一個虛構的名字使用或被告者的出現。

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.