Peer assumption: an illusory consensus hidden in the criminal responsibility of juvenile offender—evidence from psychology

HIGHLIGHTS

• What: The aim of this paper was to test this hypothesis. Although this defense has been rejected in a number of cases, based on the interpretation of the Model Criminal Code Sec 2.02 (d), when an ordinary person in the context of the perpetrator usually violates the duty of reasonable care created by the specific provisions, he or she cannot at least be held criminally liable for negligence. Ultimately, this study attempts to address the following questions: and ordinary minors. Limitation and future studies Although this study had drawn some conclusions in comparing the responsibility ability . . .
  

   

  

  If you want to have access to all the content you need to log in!

  Thanks :)

  Username or E-mail:

  If you don't have an account, you can create one here.