In evaluating criminal capacity, the law recognizes a developmental difference between juveniles and adults by presuming that children within certain age brackets, particularly between seven and fourteen years, may lack the mental maturity to form criminal intent. Unlike adults, where competence to stand trial is almost always presumed, children are given the benefit of doubt based on age-related cognitive development. To counter this presumption, the prosecution must provide clear evidence that the juvenile possessed sufficient mental capacity to understand the wrongfulness of their conduct.
For example: A ten-year-old child found vandalizing property may not be presumed to have the same understanding of their actions as an adult would; thus, the court would require substantial evidence to show that the child knew this action was wrong and was fully aware of its consequences.