Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: SPECIAL LEGISLATION IN VARIOUS STATES /. England. While the patria potestas had full force in Rome, the father was responsible for the acts of his children just as he was as owner responsible for the acts of his slaves and animals. 1 But when this was broken up and the child became legally a person, there went along with what rights he had certain responsibilities. In criminal law there grew up a feeling that the child under seven should be held responsible for nothing. Among the Germanic peoples usually the child did not assume rights and responsibilities until the age of twelve, when he was formally invested with the implements of war. Early English law hesitated between the two ages. In Anglo-Norman days the age of twelve was favored, "while a seven-year limit appears in later criminal law as the subject of a presumption against criminal intent," the influence being probably Roman. 2 xAt the same time there was a strong tendency in practice to consider'the intent of the action immaterial.' Thus, whenever there was manifested a disposition to exempt the infant from punishment because of his tender years, it was forbidden because age and intent theoretically had nothing to do with the case. Until the person became the centre of attention in criminal cases, the feelings of judge or lawyer had to be satisfied if at all under the guise of some device or irregularity. Early in the seventeenth century the infant was ranked with the lunatic as "liable civilly on the ground that the intent (i. e. bad intent, bad motive) was immaterial." 3 This was a miserable compromise. Gradual-- ly the Roman influence grew until it became English common law that the child under 7 was exempt from punishment as incapable of entertaining criminal intent. A like presumption was allowed for those betwee...