Doli incapax is of Latin origin which means incapable of making mistakes. According to the doctrine, children are presumed incapable of committing a crime because they cannot distinguish between right and wrong; and therefore, he could not possess the mens rea (guilty mind or intention) required to prove guilt. This presumption of criminal incapacity has an irrefutable and refutable form depending on the age of the child. This term is used in reference to the criminal responsibility of children. In general, a child under the age of 10 is considered doli incapax, meaning incapable of committing any crime and therefore has no criminal liability. Children between the ages of 10 and 14 were protected by a rebuttable presumption of doli incapax, meaning that the child may or may not be criminally responsible. It is the prosecutor's responsibility to prove whether or not the minor knew that what he did constituted a crime. If there is insufficient evidence to show that the child knows that what he or she did is a crime, the presumption of doli incapax would come into play which would hold the child not to be criminally responsible. As for children over 14 years of age but under They are 18 years old, are doli capax and are treated as adults. However, they would be tried in a special juvenile court, which is the Children's Court in Malaysia, and subjected to special punishments such as detention in Henry Gurney School. However, not all countries use the doli incapax principle. For example, section 34 of the UK Crime and Disorder Act 1998 had expressly abolished the presumption of doli incapax. Furthermore, different countries may practice it in different ways. For example, there may be a difference in age... middle of the paper... distinguishing right from wrong at an early age, there are still children who honestly don't know how to distinguish right from wrong as it is assumed by most. Therefore, if the presumption of doli incapax were applied, these children, even if they constituted only a minority, would be faced with an injustice whereby they would now be condemned to the full rigor of the law without any real intention. Therefore, this would defeat the purpose of the law. With respect to the argument that the presumption of doli incapax would be unjust because it would free children who have actus reus and mens rea from criminal liability, further limitations to the presumption of doli incapax could instead be applied. For example, you can change the age from which doli incapax is applicable. On the other hand, if the presumption of doli incapax were totally abolished, it would leave the innocent totally defenseless.