HKLII

Hong Kong Law Reform Commission
[Index] [Table of Contents] [Search] [Help]

Annex 5

Survey of public opinion on the Age of Criminal Responsibility in Hong Kong carried out by the Social Data Research Unit, Department of Applied Social Studies of the City University of Hong Kong




Cheung Chau-kiu, Ph.D. (Principal Investigator)
Leung Kwan-kwok, Ph.D.
Ngan Man-hung Raymond, Ph.D.
Ma Kun, MA
Chan Wing-tai, MA, JP





Members of the Research Team:


Dr. Chau-kiu Cheung
Research Assistant Professor
Dr. Kwan-kwok Leung
Associate Professor
Dr. Raymond Man-hung Ngan
Associate Head
Mr. Steven Kun Ma
Lecturer
Mr. Wing-tai Chan
Honorary Research Fellow


Department of Applied Social Studies
City University of Hong Kong

With the support of its Social Data Research Unit, which facilitates social research with computer-assisted telephone interviewing with and without an interviewer, to conduct both phone-in and phone-out surveys


Table of Contents


Page

Survey of Public Opinion on the Age of Criminal Responsibility in Hong Kong


Summary

Between April 28 and May 8, 1999, the Department of Applied Social Studies, City University of Hong Kong conducted a random sample telephone survey on behalf of the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong. This survey successfully interviewed 1,144 people aged 15 or above to collect their opinions on the age of criminal responsibility. Their opinions indicated that an overwhelming majority (89.4% of the population as estimated from the survey) of people preferred a minimum age of criminal responsibility at an age of 8 years or above. A minimum age of 14.4 years was the average in the population. More than a quarter (28.4%) of people supported applying the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax to persons aged either between 7 and 14 years or specified ranges preferred by respondents. It was particularly favorable for applying to persons between a raised minimum age and 14 years, according to an appreciable proportion (21.4%) of people. However, relative few (6.4%) people supported applying the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax to persons between 7 and 14 years of age. On the other hand, the rebuttable presumption of doli capax received support from a low proportion (6.9%) of people.

Significant variation in the opinions appears among people of different characteristics. The preferred minimum age of criminal responsibility varied significantly among different characteristics of people’s age and education. Agreement to the rebuttable presumption of doli capax varied significantly among different characteristics of people’s sex, age, religious faith, and education. Furthermore, support for the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax significantly varied among different levels of education and knowledge about the law of criminal responsibility. Hence, preference for a minimum age of 8 or above varied from 71.7% among people with no formal education to 94.0% among people aged between 20 and 29 years of age. Agreement to the rebuttable presumption of doli capax ranged from 4.3% among people with no formal education to 15.0% among people aged between 50 and 59 years of age. General support for the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax ranged from 20.3% of people with primary education to 38.4% among people with no formal education. All these opinions were significantly different among people of different educational levels.

Report

1.Following a pre-test of 33 interviews on April 22 and 23, 1999, a random sample telephone survey interviewed 1,144 people in Hong Kong between April 28 and May 8, 1999. This pretest and full-scale surveys drew samples of the population through the sample frame of all residential telephone number in Hong Kong. The random sampling procedure involved two steps: (1) drawing a random sample of residential telephone numbers and (2) drawing a random sample of members of households with the selected telephone numbers. Trained and qualified interviewers conducted the survey with the aid of computer-assisted interviewing facilities. The facilities can ensure the correct flow of the interview and the quality of data input. The pretest served to improve survey questions so as to guarantee their clarity, comprehensibility, legitimacy, and feasibility when used in the full-scale survey.

2.The response rate of the full-scale survey was 36.2%, estimated in terms of the ratio of the number of successful interviews to the sum of that number and the number (2,016) of households that refused to participate in the survey.

3.To maximize the representativeness of the data, a weighting procedure attached a weight to each case according to the age and sex of the respondent so as to make the resultant distribution of age and sex equivalent to the population projected for 1999 (based on the 1996 bi-census). That is, a case whose age and sex were underrepresented in the sample relative to the population would be more important and thus have a weight higher than one. Conversely, a case whose age and sex were overrepresented in the sample would have a weight lower than one. As a result, distribution figures in terms of unweighted and weighted data are available. In addition, figures are available for the case that excludes missing values due to “not understanding” and “not willing to answer.” These figures derived from the assumption that those not understanding or not willing to answer would have the same distribution of valid responses as those giving valid responses.


Profile of the Sample


4.Respondents’ age ranged from 15 to 87 years, with an average of 37.1 (see Table 1). The average age was slightly lower the mean (40.9) of the population, as a result of the weighting procedure that equated the distribution of the sample to that of the population in age and sex. The sample tended to overrepresent respondents aged between 15 and 19 years. After application of the weighting procedure, the weighted proportion of the youngest category reduced. The sample consisted slightly of more female respondents than male respondents (52.9% vs. 45.8%; 1.3% unidentified, see Table 2). After weighting, the proportion of male people became closer to that of female people. An overwhelming majority (97.8%) of the interviews employed Chinese as the medium (see Table 3). Only 25 interviews used English as the medium. Most respondents attained the senior secondary level (Secondary 4 to Secondary 7) of education (see Table 4). Few people had not received any formal education. About 70% of the population aged 15 or above did not have religious faith (see Table 5).

Table 1: Distribution of responses to Question 12: What is your age?
15-19
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
70 or above
Not willing to answer
Unweighted count
162
170
219
178
86
63
58
208
Unweighted percent
14.2
14.9
19.1
15.6
7.5
5.5
5.1
18.2
Weighted percent
7.3
14.6
20.3
17.8
8.8
7.6
5.6
18.1
Weighted percent, excluding missing
8.9
17.8
24.8
21.7
10.8
9.3
6.8
-
Unweighted mean = 37.1; weighted mean = 40.9
Notes: The unweighted count was the number existing in the sample.
The unweighted percent was the percent in the sample.
The weighted percent was the percent in the population by adjusting data from the sample based on the distribution of age and sex.
The weighted percent with missing excluded was the percent in the population by excluding those responses of “not understand” and “not willing to answer” from the basis of calculation.
“-“: treated as a missing value.

Table 2: Distribution of responses to Question 13: What is your sex?
Male
Female
Not identified
Unweighted count
524
605
15
Unweighted percent
45.8
52.9
1.3
Weighted percent
48.3
50.4
1.3
Weighted percent, excluding missing
48.9
51.1
-

Table 3: Distribution of responses to Question 14: Language used during the interview
Chinese
English
Unweighted count
1119
25
Unweighted percent
97.8
2.2
Weighted percent
97.7
2.3
Table 4: Distribution of responses to Question 11: What is your level of education?
No
Primary
Junior secondary
Senior secondary
Post-secondary
Not willing to answer
Unweighted count
63
152
254
448
198
29
Unweighted percent
5.5
13.3
22.2
39.2
17.3
2.5
Weighted percent
6.4
15.0
21.4
36.2
18.2
2.9
Weighted percent, missing excluded
6.6
15.4
22.0
37.2
18.7
-

Table 5: Distribution of responses to Question 10: Do you have any religious faith?
Yes
No
Not willing to answer
Unweighted count
302
822
12
Unweighted percent
26.4
71.9
1.7
Weighted percent
28.2
70.2
1.6
Weighted percent, missing excluded
28.7
71.3
-

Opinions on the Age of Criminal Responsibility

5.The majority of the population with age of 15 years or above preferred the age of criminal responsibility should be at least 8 years or above (see Table 6). According to the weighted figures with missing excluded, 89.4% of the population preferred such an option. This figures also assumed that 89.4% of those failing to give responses to the question would also preferred a minimum age of 8 years or above for criminal responsibility. At any rate, the exact proportion might be between 86.7% and 89.4%, depending on the true preference of those who failed to give responses to the survey question. On the other hand, only 0.9% of the population preferred to have criminal responsibility beginning at an age under 7.

Table 6: Distribution of responses to Question 1: At what age do you think persons should be held criminally responsible for their actions?
Below 7
7
8 or above
Not sure
No comment
Not under-stand
Not willing to answer
Unweighted count
13
17
997
42
48
22
5
Unweighted percent
1.1
1.5
87.2
3.7
4.2
1.9
0.4
Weighted percent
0.9
1.3
86.7
3.8
4.2
2.5
0.2
Weighted percent, missing excluded
0.9
1.4
89.4
8.3
-
-

6.Only 7 respondents who preferred an age of criminal responsibility below 7 indicated the minimum age of criminal responsibility (see Table 7). The proportion of the population favoring each of the suggested ages was very small.

Table 7: Distribution of responses to Question 1.1: What should be the minimum age of criminal responsibility given that it should be below 7?
0
1
5
6
Unweighted count
1
1
2
3
Unweighted percent
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
Weighted percent
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.2
6 respondents being unsure of the age

7.According to weighted data, 18.1% of the population preferred the minimum age of criminal responsibility to be 18 years (see Table 8). This age was the most popular among the population. The next popular minimum age of criminal responsibility was 16 years, with 15.5% of the population favoring that age. Few people preferred the minimum age to be 19 years or above. The average minimum age preferred by those preferring a minimum age of 8 years or above for criminal responsibility was 14.5 years. More than half (52.1%) of the population clearly suggested their preferred minimum age of criminal responsibility to be 14 or above. In other words, among those indicating a minimum age that was 8 years or above, 67.5% indicated an age of 14 years or above.
Table 8: Distribution of responses to Question 1.2: What should be the
minimum age of criminal responsibility given that it should be 8 or above?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
Unweighted count
68
6
63
33
93
19
59
120
189
13
200
1
6
5
1
Unweighted percent
5.9
0.5
5.5
2.9
8.1
1.7
5.2
10.5
16.5
1.1
17.5
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.1
Weighted percent
5.8
0.3
4.9
2.3
9.7
1.9
5.1
10.5
15.5
1.1
18.1
0.1
0.7
0.6
0.1
Number of respondents = 876
Unweighted mean = 14.5; unweighted % of 14 or above = 51.9
Weighted mean = 14.5; weighted % of 14 or above = 52.1

8.Combining data from 900 (7 indicating an age below 7, 17 preferring the age of 7, and 876 indicating an age of 8 or above) respondents who indicated their preferred minimum age of criminal responsibility, the weighted mean of the preferred age was 14.4 years, which represented the average of preferred age in the population of people aged 15 years or above in Hong Kong. The age of 14.4 would be the best estimate of the preferred minimum age of criminal responsibility for anyone aged 15 or above. Associated with the estimate was a standard deviation of 3.36 years, which meant that an individual in general might have an average deviation of 3.36 years above or below the average preferred age of 14.4 years (i.e., between 11.04 and 17.22). On the other hand, 15.6% of the population would have a preferred minimum age around 14 and 15 years.

9.Weighted data indicated that 6.4% of the population indicated the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax was right (an answer of “right” to the question, “Do you think the current rebuttable presumption of doli incapax for persons between 7 and 14 years of age is right or not?”) (see Table 9). Only 0.7% of the population indicated the rule was not right and required change. Moreover, 1.9% of the population reported that the rule was not right but it did not require change.

Table 9: Distribution of responses to Question 2: Do you think the current rebuttable rule of law of doli incapax for persons between 7 and 14 years of age is right or not?
Right
Not right only
Not right and should change
Not sure
No comment
Not under-stand
Not willing to answer
Not applica-ble
Unweighted count
66
19
8
11
23
19
2
996
Unweighted percent
5.8
1.7
0.7
1.0
2.0
1.7
0.2
87.1
Weighted percent
6.3
1.9
0.7
0.8
1.9
1.8
0.1
86.6
Weighted percent, missing excluded
6.4
1.9
0.7
2.7
-
-
88.3
Note: The “not applicable” were those not necessary to answer the question because they did not prefer a range of 7 and 14 years for the rebuttable rule.

10.To persons aged between 7 and 14, only 2 respondents suggested to lower the upper age for applying the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax (answer the question, “How do you think the current rebuttable presumption of doli incapax should be changed?”) (see Table 10). Only one respondent suggested to raise the upper age and only one respondent preferred to abolish the rule. Hence, very few of the population indicated the way of changing the rule.

11.None of the respondents who suggested either to lower or raise the upper age reported an age instead of the upper age of 14.

Table 10: Distribution of responses to Question 3: How do you think the
current rebuttable rule of law of doli incapax should be changed?
Lower the upper age of 14
Raise the upper age of 14
Abolish the rule
Not sure
No comment
Not under-stand
Not willing to answer
Not applica-ble
Unweighted count
2
1
1
2
2
0
0
1136
Unweighted percent
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
99.3
Weighted percent
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
99.3
Weighted percent, missing excluded
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
-
-
99.3
Note: The “not applicable” were those not necessary to answer the question because they did not prefer a change of the rebuttable rule.


12.Only 0.9% of the population thought that applying the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax was right to persons aged between a suggested lower minimum age and 14 years (answer to the question: Do you think the current rebuttable presumption of doli incapax for persons between the lowered minimum age and 14 years of age is right or not?) (see Table 11). Only 0.3% of the population thought that applying the rule was not right.

Table 11: Distribution of responses to Question 4: Do you think the current rebuttable rule of doli incapax for persons between the lowered minimum age and 14 years of age is right or not?
Right
Not right only
Not right and should change
Not sure
No comment
Not under-stand
Not willing to answer
Not applica-ble
Unweighted count
12
3
0
0
0
1
0
1128
Unweighted percent
1.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
98.6
Weighted percent
0.9
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
98.8
Weighted percent, missing excluded
0.9
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
-
-
98.8
Note: The “not applicable” were those not necessary to answer the question because they did not prefer an age lower than 7.

13.Weighted data showed that 21.4 of the population thought that applying the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax was right to persons aged between a suggested raised minimum age and 14 years (answer to the question: Do you think the current rebuttable presumption of doli incapax for persons between the raised minimum age and 14 is right or not?) (see Table 12). Only 4.1% of the population thought that applying the rule was not right but did not require change and 3.7% of the population thought that applying the rule was not right and required change.
Table 12: Distribution of responses to Question 5: Do you think the current rebuttable rule of doli incapax for persons between the raised minimum age and 14 is right or not?
Right
Not right only
Not right and should change
Not sure
No comment
Not under-stand
Not willing to answer
Not applica-ble
Unweighted count
248
49
39
35
12
5
2
754
Unweighted percent
21.7
4.3
3.4
3.1
1.0
0.4
0.2
65.9
Weighted percent
21.3
4.1
3.7
3.0
0.9
0.4
0.1
66.5
Weighted percent, missing excluded
21.4
4.1
3.7
3.9
-
-
66.9
Note: The “not applicable” were those not necessary to answer the question because they did not prefer an age higher than 7 but lower than 14.

14.Only 1.3% of the population preferred to lower the upper age of 14 in order to change the application of the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax was right to persons aged between a suggested raised minimum age and 14 years (answer to the question: How do you think it should be changed given the lower age lowered or raised?) (see Table 13). Only 0.1% of the population preferred to raise the upper age and 0.3% of the population proposed to abolish the rule.

Table 13: Distribution of responses to Question 6: How do you think it should be changed given the lower age lowered or raised?
Lower the upper age of 14
Raise the upper age of 14
Abolish the rule
Not sure
No comment
Not under-stand
Not willing to answer
Not applica-ble
Unweighted count
12
2
4
5
2
1
0
1118
Unweighted percent
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.0
97.7
Weighted percent
1.3
0.1
0.3
0.8
0.1
0.0
0.0
97.5
Weighted percent, missing excluded
1.3
0.1
0.3
0.9
-
-
97.5
Note: The “not applicable” were those not necessary to answer the question because they did not prefer a change of the rebuttable rule.




15.To lower the upper age for applying the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax to persons aged between a suggested raised minimum age and the upper age, 1.4% of the population suggested an upper age from 3 to 12 years (see Table 14). Among these lowered upper ages, the age of 12 was the most popular, with 0.8% of the population showing such a preference.

Table 14: Distribution of responses to Question 6.1: Lowered upper age
3
7
8
9
10
11
12
Not appli-cable
Unweighted count
1
1
2
1
3
1
5
1130
Unweighted percent
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.4
98.8
Weighted percent
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.8
98.6
Note: The “not applicable” were those not necessary to answer the question because they did not prefer a lowered upper age.

16.To raise the upper age for applying the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax to persons aged between a suggested raised minimum age and the upper age, only one respondent suggested to an upper age of 16 (see Table 15).

Table 15: Distribution of responses to Question 6.2: Raised upper age
16
Not applicable
Unweighted count
1
1143
Unweighted percent
0.1
99.9
Weighted percent
0.1
99.9
Note: The “not applicable” were those not necessary to answer the question because they did not prefer a raised upper age.

17.Data showed that 6.9% of the population agreed to apply the rebuttable presumption of doli capax to persons aged between 7 and 14 or some other ranges preferred by respondents (answer to the question: Do you agree to the rebuttable presumption of doli capax?) (see Table 16). This was only slightly more than the 6.0% of population who disagreed to apply the rule.


Table 16: Distribution of responses to Question 7: Do you agree to the
reversed rule of doli capax?
Agree
Disagree
Not sure
No comment
Not under-stand
Not willing to answer
Not applic-able
Unweighted count
83
61
20
28
13
8
931
Unweighted percent
7.3
5.3
1.7
2.4
1.1
0.7
81.4
Weighted percent
6.8
5.9
1.7
2.2
1.1
0.6
81.6
Weighted percent, missing excluded
6.9
6.0
4.0
-
-
83.1
Note: The “not applicable” were those not necessary to answer the question because they did not prefer an age below 14.

18.Overall, 28.4% of the population thought that applying the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax was right to persons aged either between 7 and 14, between 7 and a more preferable upper age, between a more preferable lower age and 14, or between a more preferable lower age and a more preferable upper age (see Table 17). This proportion was considerably greater than that (6.9%) agreeing to apply the reverse rebuttable presumption of doli capax. Support for the rebuttable presumption applied to persons between a raised minimum age and 14 years accounted for a large portion of the overall support (75.4% = 21.4% (see Table 12) /28.4% (see Table 17)).

Table 17: Distribution of overall support of the rule of doli incapax

Right
Other than right
Unweighted count
323
821
Unweighted percent
28.2
71.8
Weighted percent
28.4
71.6

19.To sum up,
19.1Support was most remarkable for considering the age of 8 years or above as the minimum age of criminal responsibility (89.4% of the population);
19.2Preference for a minimum age of 14 years or above for criminal responsibility was present in 52.1% of the population;
19.3The average age regarded as the minimum age of criminal responsibility was 14.4 years;
19.4More than a quarter (28.4%) of the population supported the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax in general;
19.5Slightly more than one-fifth (21.4%) of the population supported applying the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax to persons between a raised minimum age and 14 years;
19.6Support for the rebuttable presumption of doli capax was low (6.9%);
19.7Support for the current application of the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax to persons between 7 and 14 years of age was similarly low (6.4%).

20.The distribution of responses to critical concerns about the minimum age of criminal responsibility, the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax, and change for the rule is shown in the following chart.
age01.jpg


21.Accordingly, the overwhelming majority (89.4%) of the population preferred a minimum age of 8 or above. Among this majority, 59.6% indicated an age of 14 or above. Again out of this majority, 21.4% of the population thought that the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax was right. This figure represented 66.3% of those who indicated a minimum age between 7 and 14. Furthermore, 6.4% of the population thought that the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax was right to apply to persons aged between 7 and 14. Another 0.9% of the population also thought that the rule was right to apply to persons between a preferable age below 7 and 14. In total, 28.4% of the population thought that the rebuttable presumption was right. On the other hand, only 4.4% of the population thought that the presumption was not right and required change.

Knowledge about the Age of Criminal Responsibility

22.About 30% of the population reported that they knew that criminal responsibility did not apply to persons aged under 7 years (see Table 18). In addition, 22.6% of the population reported that they knew that the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax applied to persons aged between 7 and 14 years (see Table 19).

Table 18: Distribution of responses to Question 8: Did you know that in Hong Kong the law provides that a person below 7 years of age cannot be found guilty of a criminal offence?
Yes
No
Not sure
No comment
Not understand
Not willing to answer
Unweighted count
342
736
41
4
5
16
Unweighted percent
29.9
64.3
3.6
0.3
0.4
1.4
Weighted percent
29.9
64.5
3.5
0.3
0.4
1.5
Weighted percent, missing excluded
30.4
65.6
3.9
-
-

Table 19: Distribution of responses to Question 9: Did you know that in Hong Kong the law provides that a person between the ages of 7 and 14 years cannot be found guilty of a criminal offence unless the prosecution proves that the person knew at the time of the offence that his act was seriously wrong?
Yes
No
Not sure
No comment
Not understand
Not willing to answer
Unweighted count
249
813
50
4
12
16
Unweighted percent
21.8
71.1
4.4
0.3
1.0
1.4
Weighted percent
22.1
69.8
5.7
0.3
0.8
1.3
Weighted percent, missing excluded
22.6
71.3
6.0
-
-


Opinion on Criminal Responsibility among Various Characteristics


23.At the outset, the study was conscious of variation across or contamination by background characteristics including religious faith, education, sex, age, and use of English, and knowledge about the law of criminal responsibility. To determine and eliminate the bias, breakdown of the distribution among various characteristics was necessary. The breakdown involved a test of association between each characteristic and opinion. The appropriate measure of association would be Cramer’s V which ranges from 0 to 1, with 1 indicating maximum association and 0 indicating no association. Cramer’s V was a typical measure of association between categorical data.

24.Concerning the first question about the age of criminal responsibility, breakdown analysis indicated that age and education had significant associations with the preferred age. On the contrary, sex, religion, use of English, and knowledge about the law of criminal responsibility made no difference in the distribution of responses regarding the age of criminal responsibility (see Table 20).

25.Regarding the association with age, people aged between 20 and 29 were most (94.0%) likely to prefer the age of criminal responsibility to be 8 or above. On the other hand, people aged 70 or above were least (79.7%) likely to prefer the age of 8 or above. Results also show that people aged between 50 and 59 were relatively more (4.1%) likely to prefer the minimum age of criminal responsibility to be 7 years, among the population.

26.Regarding the association with education, people with senior secondary education were most (92.5%) likely to prefer the age of criminal responsibility to be 8 or above. On the other hand, people with no formal education were least (71.7%) likely to prefer the age of 8 or above. They instead were most (25.0%) likely to be uncertain about the age of criminal responsibility, among the population.

Table 20: Percentage distribution of responses to Question 1: At what age do you think persons should be held criminally responsible for their actions?
Below 7
7
8 or above
Not sure or no comment
Male
0.6
1.5
89.4
8.5
Female
1.3
1.3
89.4
8.1
Cramer’s V
.039
Age 15-19
2.4
3.6
90.5
3.6
Age 20-29
1.2
0.6
94.0
4.2
Age 30-39
0.4
0.9
92.3
6.4
Age 40-49
0.0
1.5
87.3
11.2
Age 50-59
1.0
4.1
88.8
6.1
Age 60-69
0.0
0.0
81.0
19.0
Age 70 or above
3.4
0.0
79.7
16.9
Cramer’s V
.131*
Having religious faith
1.0
0.6
88.5
9.9
Having no religious faith
1.0
1.6
90.0
7.4
Cramer’s V
.087
Below primary education
3.3
0.0
71.7
25.0
Primary education
0.0
0.0
89.4
10.0
Junior secondary education
2.1
0.8
89.2
7.9
Senior secondary education
0.5
2.4
92.5
4.6
Postsecondary education
0.5
1.4
89.5
8.0
Cramer’s V
.122*
Interview in Chinese
1.0
1.4
89.6
8.0
Interview in English
0.0
0.0
80.0
20.0
Cramer’s V
.068
Knowledge about the law for persons under 7
0.9
2.1
90.5
6.5
Not knowing
0.9
1.2
89.5
8.4
Cramer’s V
.046
Knowledge about the law for persons between 7 and 14
0.4
1.6
90.3
7.7
Not knowing
1.1
1.3
89.9
7.8
Cramer’s V
.031
* significant at .05 level, meaning that the possibility of no association in the population was
less than 5%.

27.Agreement with the rebuttable presumption of doli capax showed significant associations with sex, age, religion, and education. On the other hand, associations between the agreement and use of English and knowledge about the law of criminal responsibility were not significant (see Table 21).

28.Regarding association with sex, men were less likely to agree with the rule than were women (5.5% vs. 8.3%).

29.Regarding association with age, people aged between 50 and 59 years were most (15.0%) likely to agree to the reverse rule. On the other hand, people aged between 40 and 49 were least (4.4%) likely to agree with the rule.

30.Regarding association with religious faith, people having religious faith were more likely to disagree to the rule than people having no religious faith (9.4% vs. 4.8%). Religious people therefore tended to agree to the rule slightly less than nonreligious people (6.9% vs. 7.1%).

31.Regarding association with education, people having attained senior secondary education were most (9.0%) likely to agree to the rule. On the other hand, people with no formal education were least (4.3%) likely to agree to the rule.


Table 21: Percentage distribution of responses to Question 7: Do you agree to the reversed rule of doli capax?
Agree
Disagree
Not sure or no comment
Not applicable
Male
5.5
6.4
2.6
85.5
Female
8.3
5.5
5.3
81.0
Cramer’s V
.092*
Age 15-19
7.1
6.0
4.8
82.1
Age 20-29
7.2
7.8
1.2
83.7
Age 30-39
8.2
2.6
3.0
86.3
Age 40-49
4.4
6.9
6.9
81.9
Age 50-59
15.0
2.0
0.0
83.0
Age 60-69
5.8
23.3
4.7
66.3
Age 70 or above
5.4
3.6
8.9
82.1
Cramer’s V
.165*
Having religious faith
6.9
9.4
2.5
81.3
Having no religious faith
7.1
4.8
4.4
83.8
Cramer’s V
.096*
Below primary education
4.3
2.9
13.0
79.7
Primary education
6.6
12.0
8.4
73.1
Junior secondary education
4.9
4.5
3.3
87.2
Senior secondary education
9.0
4.6
1.5
85.0
Postsecondary education
6.7
7.2
3.4
82.7
Cramer’s V
.123*
Interview in Chinese
6.7
5.9
4.0
83.4
Interview in English
14.8
11.1
3.7
70.4
Cramer’s V
.061
Knowledge about the law for persons under 7
7.3
5.8
2.9
83.9
Not knowing
6.9
6.2
4.3
82.7
Cramer’s V
.034
Knowledge about the law for persons between 7 and 14
4.4
4.8
3.6
87.3
Not knowing
7.8
8.4
3.8
82.0
Cramer’s V
.065

32.Concerning support for the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax, associations with education and knowledge about the law of criminal responsibility were significant. On the other hand, associations with sex, age, religious faith, and use of English were not significant (see Table 22).

33.Regarding association with education, people with no formal education were most (38.4%) likely to think that the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax was right, among the population. On the other hand, people with primary education were least (20.3%) likely to support the rule.

34.Regarding association with knowledge about the law for persons under 7 years of age, people reporting to have such knowledge were more likely to support the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax than people not knowing about the law (33.5% vs. 26.2%).

35.Regarding association with knowledge about the law for persons between 7 and 14 years of age, people who knew about the law were more likely to support the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax than were those who did not know (36.2% vs. 26.3%).

Table 22: Percentage distribution of responses favoring the rebuttable
presumption of doli  incapax


Right
Not right
Male
27.3
72.7
Female
29.2
70.8
Cramer’s V
.021
Age 15-19
28.6
71.4
Age 20-29
35.1
64.9
Age 30-39
31.8
68.2
Age 40-49
31.4
68.6
Age 50-59
20.8
70.2
Age 60-69
28.7
71.3
Age 70 or above
25.0
75.0
Cramer’s V
.090
Having religious faith
29.8
70.2
Having no religious faith
27.8
72.2
Cramer’s V
.020
Below primary education
38.4
61.6
Primary education
20.3
79.7
Junior secondary education
29.3
70.7
Senior secondary education
29.6
70.4
Postsecondary education
26.8
73.2
Cramer’s V
.093*
Interview in Chinese
28.4
71.6
Interview in English
25.9
74.1
Cramer’s V
.008
Knowledge about the law for persons under 7
33.5
66.5
Not knowing
26.2
73.8
Cramer’s V
.074*
Knowledge about the law for persons between 7 and 14
36.2
63.8
Not knowing
26.3
73.7
Cramer’s V
.082*
36.The preceding breakdown analysis illustrates significant variation among people of different characteristics regarding their opinions on the age of criminal responsibility. People who are knowledgeable about the law and receive no education tend to support the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax. Younger people and higher educated people tend to consider a higher minimum age of criminal responsibility. Religious people tend to disagree to the rebuttable presumption of doli capax.

37.As regards variation among people of different age ranges, preference for a minimum age of 8 or above for criminal responsibility varied from 79.7% among people aged 70 or above to 94.0% among people aged 20 to 29; support for the rebuttable presumption of doli capax varied from 4.4% among people aged 40 to 49 and 15.0% among people aged 50 to 59; support for the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax varied from 20.8% among people aged 50 to 59 to 35.1% among people aged 20 to 29, although the variation was not statistically significant.

38.As regards variation among people with different levels of education, preference for a minimum age of 8 or above for criminal responsibility varied from 71.7% among people with no formal education to 92.5% among people with senior secondary education; support for the rebuttable presumption of doli capax varied from 4.3% among people with no formal education to 9.0% among people with senior secondary education; support for the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax varied from 20.3% among people with primary education level to 38.4% among people with no formal education

39.Taking the variation into account, preference for a minimum age of 8 or above varied from 71.7% among people with no formal education to 94.0% among people aged between 20 and 29 years of age. Agreement to the rebuttable presumption of doli capax ranged from 4.3% among people with no formal education to 15.0% among people aged between 50 and 59 years of age. General support for the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax ranged from 20.3% of people with primary education to 38.4% among people with no formal education.

Conclusion

40.By inferring from data of a random sample of people in Hong Kong, the study finds out that most (89.4%) of the people preferred a minimum age of 8 or above for criminal responsibility. The proportions of people in different age ranges showing such a preference varied from 79.7% to 94.0%. Younger people were more likely to prefer the minimum age than older people. On the other hand, the proportions of people with different levels of education showing such a preference varied from 71.7% to 92.5%. People with higher education were more favorable to a minimum age of 8 or above. In all, at least 70% of a significant subpopulation preferred the minimum age range. From their preference, it appears that 51.7% of people preferred a minimum age of 14 or above. Hence, it seems that these people would not need to consider the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax. However, preference for a minimum age range does not necessarily mean support for a change in the current rule of law. Only 4.4% of people indicated that the rule was not right and required change.

41.The finding shows that 28.4% of people supported applying the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax to persons aged either between 7 and 14 years, between 7 and a more preferable upper age, between a more preferable lower age and 14, or between a more preferable lower age and a more preferable upper age. Significant variation appeared in the proportion of people with different levels of education and knowledge about the law regarding age of criminal responsibility. The proportions of people supportive of the rule varied from 20.3% to 38.4% among people with different levels of education. People without formal education were most likely to support the rule. Those who were knowledgeable about the rule of law for people between 7 and 14 years of age were more likely to be supportive of the rule than were other people (36.2% vs. 26.3%).

42.On the other hand, the rebuttable presumption of doli capax received support from a low proportion (6.9%) of people. Significant variation in the support appeared among people of different sexes, age ranges, and levels of education and between those with religious faith. The proportions varied from 4.3% of people with formal education to 15.0% of people aged between 50 and 59. However, people who were supportive of the reverse rule were in the minority.

The Questionnaire (English Version)


lHello! I am an interviewer of the City University of Hong Kong. I would like to conduct a simple opinion survey. This is a survey commissioned by the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong.
lFor the sake of fair sampling, I would like to know about people who are 15 years of old or above in your household. Please tell me one by one. (e.g., father, mother, eldest brother)
lAccording to the random sampling procedure, I need to interview _____. May I talk to him/her?
l(in case the selected person is not available) When will he/she come back? (jot down the person and time)

l(use the computerized random sampling procedure to select a person to receive the phone) Hello! I am an interviewer of the City University of Hong Kong. I would like to conduct a simple opinion survey. This is a survey commissioned by the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong.
lThis survey would like to ask you opinions about the criminal responsibility of juveniles. Criminal responsibility refers to the case in which one, under most circumstances, can be charged, prosecuted, and convicted, given sufficient verdict, for any offence allegedly committed.
lInformation obtained from this survey is certainly helpful to the work of the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong. Your personal information must be kept strictly confidential.
lFor the following questions, if you do not understand, are not sure, or have no comment, you can just tell me about it.
lOn the other hand, you can interpret question in your best and express your opinion. There is no correct and incorrect answer for your opinion. In all, all you opinions would be regarded as important.

1. At what age do you think persons should be held criminally responsible for their actions?
(1) Below 7. (Go to Q.1.1)
(2) 7. (Go to Q.2)
(3) 8 or above. (Go to Q.1.2)
(6) Not sure. (Go to Q.2)
(7) No comment. (Go to Q.2)
(8) Question not understood. (Go to Q.2)
(9)Not willing to answer. (Go to Q.2)

1.1 What should be the minimum age?
_____ years old. (Go to Q.4)
(66) Not sure. (Go to Q.2)
(99)Not willing to answer. (Go to Q.2)

1.2 What should be the minimum age?
_____ years old. (Go to Q.5)
[if the age is 14 or above, then Go to Q.8]
(66) Not sure. (Go to Q.2)
(99) Not willing to answer. (Go to Q.2)

2. The law provides that persons between 7 and 14 years of age cannot be found guilty of a criminal offence unless the prosecution proves that they knew at the time of the offence that what they did was seriously wrong.

Do you think this rule of law is right or not?
(1) Think it is right. (Go to Q.8)
(2) Think it is not right. (Go to Q.7)
(3) Think it is not right. It should be changed. (Go to Q.3)
(6) Not sure. (Go to Q.7)
(7) No comment. (Go to Q.7)
(8) Question not understood. (Go to Q.7)
(9) Not willing to answer. (Go to Q.7)

3. How do you think this rule of law should be changed?

(1) Upper age of 14 years should be lowered to _____ [specify new age]. (Go to Q.7)
(2) Upper age of 14 years should be raised to _____ [specify new age]. (Go to Q.7)
(3) This rule of law should be abolished, so that all persons aged 7 and above are criminally responsible. (Go to Q.8)
(6) Not sure. (Go to Q.7)
(7) No comment. (Go to Q.7)
(8) Question not understood. (Go to Q.7)
(9) Not willing to answer. (Go to Q.7)

4. The law provides that persons between 7 and 14 years of age cannot be found guilty of a criminal offence unless the prosecution proves that they knew at the time of the offence that what they did was seriously wrong.

Just now you said that the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be lowered to ( ) [age given in response to Q1.1], so that persons between the age of ( ) [age given in response to Q1.1] and 14 would then not be found guilty unless the prosecution proves that they knew at the time of the offence that what they did was seriously wrong.

Do you think such a rule is right or not?
(1) Think it is right. (Go to Q.8)
(2) Think it is not right. (Go to Q.7)
(3) Think it is not right. It should be changed. (Go to Q.6)
(6) Not sure. (Go to Q.7)
(7) No comment. (Go to Q.7)
(8) Question not understood. (Go to Q.7)
(9) Not willing to answer. (Go to Q.7)

5. The law provides that persons between 7 and 14 years of age cannot be found guilty of a criminal offence unless the prosecution proves that they knew at the time of the offence that what they did was seriously wrong.

Just now you said that the minimum age of criminal responsibility should be raised to ( ) [age given in response to Q1.2], so that persons between the age of ( ) [age given in response to Q1.2] and 14 would then not be found guilty unless the prosecution proves that they knew at the time of the offence that what they did was seriously wrong.

Do you think such a rule is right or not?

(1) Think it is right. (Go to Q.8)
(2) Think it is not right. (Go to Q.7)
(3) Think it is not right. It should be changed. (Go to Q.6)
(6) Not sure. (Go to Q.7)
(7) No comment. (Go to Q.7)
(8) Question not understood. (Go to Q.7)
(9)Not willing to answer. (Go to Q.7)

6. How do you think it should be changed?

(1) Upper age of 14 years should be lowered to _____ [specify new age]. (Go to Q.7)
(2) Upper age of 14 years should be raised to _____ [specify new age]. (Go to Q.7)
(3) The rule should be that all persons aged between ( ) [age given in response to Q1.1/1.2] and above are criminally responsible. (Go to Q.8)
(6) Not sure. (Go to Q.7)
(7) No comment. (Go to Q.7)
(8) Question not understood. (Go to Q.7)
(9) Not willing to answer. (Go to Q.7)

7. Well, if this rule of law were to be reversed so that all persons aged between ( ) [age given in response to Q.1, 1.1, or 1.2. If no age has been given, then the age is 7] and ( ) [age given in response to Q.3 or 6. If no age has been given, then the age is 14] are criminally responsible unless they can show that at the time of the offence they did not know that their actions were seriously wrong, would you agree?

[If question is not understood, then say “reversing this rule of law means that it is not for the prosecution to prove that the accused knew at the time of the offence that what he did was seriously wrong. Rather, it would be for the defence to prove that at the time of the offence the accused did not know that what he did was seriously wrong.”]
(1) Agree.
(2) Disagree.
(6) Not sure.
(7) No comment.
(8) Question not understood.
(9) Not willing to answer.
(Go to Q.8)

8. Prior to this interview, did you know that in Hong Kong the law provides that a person below 7 years of age cannot be found guilty of a criminal offence?
(1) Yes.
(2) No.
(6) Not sure.
(7) No comment.
(8) Question not understood.
(9)Not willing to answer.
(Go to Q.9)

9. Prior to this interview, did you know that in Hong Kong the law provides that a person between the ages of 7 and 14 years cannot be found guilty of a criminal offence unless the prosecution proves that the person knew at the time of the offence that his act was seriously wrong?
(1) Yes.
(2) No.
(6) Not sure.
(7) No comment.
(8) Question not understood.
(9) Not willing to answer.
(Go to Q.10)

10. Do you have any religious faith?
(1) Yes.
(2) No.
(9) Not willing to answer.

11. What is your level of education?
(1) Received no education.
(2) Primary.
(3) Secondary 1 to 3.
(4) Secondary 4 to 7.
(5) Post secondary or above.
(9) Not willing to answer.

12. What is your age? [approximate age acceptable]
_____ years old.
(99) Not willing to answer.
13. [Ask only when in doubt] What is your sex?
(1) Male.
(2) Female.
(9) Not willing to answer.

(Thank you very much)

14.Language used during the interview:
(1) Chinese
(2) English


- END -