In both torts and criminal law, the question of intent changes dramatically from an adult to a child. At a certain age, a child is deemed incapable of intent in both areas. A new case will put this difference in sharp relief. In Indianapolis, a lab technician, Anne McGlorthon, 53, admitted that she bit Victor Buntin, 3, but only after Buntin (who is autistic) bit her first. She now faces a charge of felony battery. Notably, Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi said “A 3-year-old can’t have the requisite intent to harm you. Therefore, you can’t defend yourself in that way.” This rules out self-defense. It is a problem dealt with regularly in both fields. In negligence, for example, a child’s conduct is reviewed accordingly to his or her age, maturity, and intellectual development — a fairly subjective standard. Below a certain age (and certainly 3 would fall into this category). most states view a child as incapable of being negligent. In other words, courts view all children of that age to be unreasonable in the sense that they have little control or common sense. Recent studies indicate that the brain continues to go through very significant changes well into the teen years. For the full story, click here