DOLI CAPAX - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

DOLI CAPAXAuthored

The Law Mind • 981 words

Definition

Latin: "capable of malice" or "capable of mischief." A term of art in criminal law describing a person — historically, a child — who possesses sufficient mental capacity and moral understanding to form criminal intent and be held accountable under the criminal law. A person deemed doli capax understands the difference between right and wrong and can therefore be treated as a responsible actor in law.

The term is most commonly encountered as one half of a paired contrast: doli capax (capable of criminal intention) against doli incapax (incapable of it). Together, the two phrases define the spectrum of criminal capacity that the common law applied to children of different ages.

Common Confusion

DOLI CAPAX / DOLI INCAPAX: These terms are conceptually opposite but frequently appear together in historical sources, sometimes causing confusion about which presumption applies and to whom. Doli capax means the child can be held criminally responsible; doli incapax means the child cannot, or cannot without rebuttal. The confusion compounds because historical sources sometimes define one term by reference to the other, and because the rebuttable presumption applicable to children between seven and fourteen years occupied a middle ground — neither fully capax nor fully incapax — that neither term cleanly describes on its own.

DOLI CAPAX / MENS REA: Doli capax is a threshold capacity concept — does this person have the baseline ability to form criminal intent? Mens rea is the actual guilty mind required for a specific offense. Satisfying doli capax does not establish mens rea; it only removes the presumptive bar to criminal liability. A researcher who conflates the two will misread sources on infancy defenses.

Core Elements

The classical common law framework, as synthesized across the historical sources, established three age-based tiers:

Under seven years: Conclusively doli incapax. Criminal prosecution was absolutely barred. No evidence could rebut this presumption.

Seven to fourteen years: Presumptively doli incapax, but rebuttably so. Prosecution could establish doli capax by demonstrating that the specific child understood the wrongfulness of the act. This was sometimes called "mischievous discretion." The burden rested on the prosecution.

Fourteen and above: Presumed doli capax. Full criminal responsibility attached, subject to any other applicable defenses.

Why It Matters in Research

Historical sources on criminal capacity are structured around this Latin pairing, and researchers working in pre-twentieth-century criminal law materials must understand doli capax as the operative term governing whether a child defendant could be prosecuted at all. Cases addressing infancy defenses in the nineteenth century and earlier will use this vocabulary rather than modern formulations like "juvenile culpability" or "age of criminal responsibility."

The middle tier — the rebuttable presumption between ages seven and fourteen — generated the most litigation and doctrinal commentary. When searching historical reporters for cases involving child defendants, doli capax (or the phrase "mischievous discretion") signals that the court is analyzing whether that presumption was overcome, not whether the child lacked mens rea in the modern sense. These are analytically distinct inquiries, and conflating them produces anachronistic readings.

A navigational trap: some historical sources, including Bouvier's, fold the definition of doli capax into the entry for doli incapax, or vice versa. Researchers who locate only one entry may miss the full doctrinal picture without checking the paired term.

The concept has shifted substantially in modern law. Most Anglo-American jurisdictions have replaced the common law age tiers with statutory frameworks establishing fixed ages of criminal responsibility or juvenile jurisdiction. In England and Wales, the doli incapax presumption for children aged ten to fourteen was abolished by statute in 1998, generating significant academic debate and subsequent case law. American jurisdictions generally codified their own age thresholds without preserving the Latin terminology, so the terms doli capax and doli incapax are largely absent from modern American judicial opinions but remain essential vocabulary for historical research.

Burrill's note — drawn from Bracton — that females were considered to arrive at doli capax earlier than males reflects a now-discarded common law doctrine. Researchers encountering this in historical sources should treat it as period-specific, not as surviving authority.

Historical Dictionary Support

The four source dictionaries are consistent on the core meaning: doli capax denotes the capacity to form criminal intention and to distinguish right from wrong. Burrill provides the most substantive treatment, tracing the phrase to the civil law (Digest citations) and to Bracton, establishing that the concept predates the English common law formulation and that its origins lie in Roman law discussions of infant liability. Black's and Rapalje & Lawrence offer compressed definitions adequate for identification but thin on doctrinal context. Bouvier's is notable for treating doli capax and doli incapax together, presenting the age-tier framework in a single consolidated entry — a useful model for researchers who need both concepts simultaneously.

None of the historical dictionaries engage with the evidentiary question of how "mischievous discretion" was actually proved in practice, nor do they address the procedural posture of cases in which the presumption was litigated. Treatise sources such as Hale's Pleas of the Crown and Blackstone's Commentaries (both cited by Bouvier) provide greater depth on the mechanics of rebuttal and should be consulted alongside the dictionary entries for research into criminal capacity doctrine.

Jurisdictional Note

Modern jurisdictions have largely replaced the doli capax / doli incapax framework with statutory age-of-responsibility rules or juvenile court jurisdiction statutes. The terminology survives most actively in English law commentary and comparative criminal law scholarship. American researchers will rarely encounter the Latin terms in contemporary judicial opinions but will encounter them regularly in historical materials, treatises, and academic literature addressing the development of the infancy defense.

DOLI CAPAXmain

Black's Law Dictionary • 1891

Lat. Capable of malice or criminal intention; having sufficient dis- plaintiff in the action of ejectment. 3 Steph. cretion and intelligence to distinguish be tween right and wrong, and so to become amenable to the criminal laws. Comm. 618.

DOLI CAPAXmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

Capable of mischief; having knowledge of right and wrong. 4 Bla. Com. 22, 23; 1 Hale, Pl. Cr. 26, 27. DOLI INCAPAX (Lat.). Incapable of distinguishing good from evil. A child un- der seven is absolutely presumed to be doli incapax; between seven and fourteen is, prima facie, incapaz doli, but may be shown to be capax doli. 4 Bla. Com. 23; Broom, Max. 310; 2 Pick. 280; 14 Ohio 222; 2 Park. Cr. R. 174. See DISCRETION; AGE. DOLLAR (Germ. Thaler). The money unit of the United States. It was established under the confederation by res- olution of congress, July 6, 1785. This was originally represented by a silver piece only; the coinage of which was authorized by the act of congress of Aug. 8, 1786. The same act also established a decimal sys- tem of coinage and accounts. But the coinage was not effected until after the passage of the act of April 2, 1792. establishing a mint, 1 U. S. Stat. L. 246; and the first coinage of dollars commenced in 1794. The law last cited provided for the coinage of "dol- lars or unita, each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar, as the same was then current, and to contain three hundred and seventy-one grains and four-sixteenth parts of a grain of pure silver, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver." The Spanish dollar known to our legislation was the dollar colned in Spanish America, North and South, which was abundant in our currency, in con- tradistinction to the dollar coined in Spain, which was rarely seen in the United States. The intrinsic value of the two coins was the same; but, as a gen- eral (not invariable) distinction the American coin- age bore pillars, and the Spanish an escutcheon or shield: all kinds bore the royal effigy. The milled dollar, so called, is in contradistinction to the irregular, misshapen coinage nicknamed cob, which a century ago was executed in the Spanish- American provinces, chiefly Mexican. By the use of a milling machine the pieces were figured on the edge, and assumed a true circular form. The pillar dollar and the milled dollar were in effect the same in value, and, in general terms, the same coin; though there are pillar dollars ("cobs") which are not milled, and there are milled dollars (of Spain proper) which have no pillars. The weight and fineness of the Spanish milled and pillar dollars is eight and one-half pieces to a Castil- lan mark or four hundred and seventeen and fifteen- seventeenths grains Troy. The limitation of four hundred and fifteen grains in our law of 1806. April 10, 2 U. S. Stat. L. 374, was to meet the loss by wear. The legal fineness of these dollars was ten dineros, twenty granos, equal to nine hundred and two and seven-ninths thousandths: the actual fineness was somewhat variable, and always below. The Span- ish dollar and all other foreign coins are ruled out by the act of congress of Feb. 21. 1857, 18 U. S. Stat. 1856-57, 163, they bein being no longer a legal tender. But the statements herein given are useful for the sake of comparison: moreover, many contracts still in existence provide for payment (of ground- rents, for example) in Spanish milled or pillar dol- lars. The following terms, or their equivalent, are frequently used in agreements made about the close of the last and the beginning of the present century: "silver milled dollars, each douar weighing seven- teen pennyweights, and six grains at least." This was equal to four hundred and fourteen grains. The standard fineness of United States silver coin from 1792 to 1836 was fourteen hundred and eighty- five parts fine silver in sixteen hundred and sixty- four. Consequently, a piece of coin of four hun- dred and fourteen grains should contain three hun- dred and sixty-nine and forty-six hundredths grains pure silver. By the act of Jan. 18, 1837, § 8, 5 U. S. Stat. 137, the standard weight and fineness of the dollar of the United States was fixed as follows: "of one thou- sand parts by weight, nine hundred shall be of pure metal, and one hundred of alloy," the alloy to con- sist of copper; and it was further provided that the weight of the silver dollar should be four hundred and twelve and one-half grains (412 1-2). The weight of the silver dollar has not ot been changed by subsequent legislation; but the propor- tionate weight of the lower denomination of silver coins has been diminished by the act of Feb. 21, 1858, 11 U. S. Stat. L. 160. By this act the half-dollar (and the lower coins in proportion) is reduced in weight fourteen and one-quarter grains below the previous coinage: so that the silver dollar which was em- braced in this act weighs twenty-eight and one-half grains more than two half-dollars. The silver dollar then, consequently, ceased to be current in the United States; but it continued to be coined to sup- ply the demands of the West India trade and a local demand for cabinets, etc. But the act of Feb. 28, 1878, 20 U. S. Stat. L. c. 20, restored the standard silver dollar of the act of Jan. 18, 1337, as a legal tend

DOLI CAPAXmain

Rapalje & Lawrence • 1888

- Capable of crime. to distinguish between good and evil. See

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In