TRADITIONALLY, THE LAW HAS ASSUMED THAT CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 7 YEARS CANNOT BE HELD CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTS, CHILDREN UNDER AGE 14 ARE TO BE TREATED AS ADULTS, AND CHILDREN AGED 7 TO 14 ARE TO BE TREATED AS ADULTS WITH AN EXCEPTIONAL BURDEN OF PROOF BEING PLACED ON THE PROSECUTOR. STUDIES BY PIAGET AND OTHERS INDICATE, HOWEVER, THAT CHILDREN YOUNGER THAN AGE 7 HAVE WELL-DEVELOPED CONCEPTS OF RIGHT AND WRONG. THESE STUDIES DID NOT DEAL DIRECTLY WITH CRIMINAL ACTS, FOCUSING INSTEAD ON BREAKING CUPS OR OTHER FORMS OF 'NAUGHTINESS.' ALL OF THESE STUDIES ALSO SHOW THAT CHILDREN UNDER AGE 4 HAVE VERY LITTLE CONCEPT OF INTENTIONALITY. THE PRESENT STUDY WAS DESIGNED TO TEST THE UNDERSTANDING OF CRIMINAL INTENT AMONG 5, 6, AND 7 YEAR OLDS USING STORIES INVOLVING ACTUAL CRIME SITUATIONS. THE CHILDREN WERE ALL WHITE, CAME FROM A LOWER MIDDLE-CLASS SCHOOL, AND WERE TESTED BY BEING ASKED TO DISCUSS THE WRONGNESS IN PAIRS OF STORIES INVOLVING ARSON, BATTERY, HOMICIDE, AND LARCENY. BOTH HIGH AND LOW DAMAGE SITUATIONS WERE INCLUDED. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE UNDERSTANDING OF 'ACCIDENTAL' VERSUS 'INTENTIONAL' INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY BETWEEN 5 YEARS AND 6 YEARS OF AGE. BY AGE 6 INTENT WAS EXPRESSED BY 73 PERCENT OF THE BOYS AND 40 PERCENT OF THE GIRLS, WHILE BY AGE 7 IT WAS SHOWN BY 70 PERCENT OF THE BOYS AND 58 PERCENT OF THE GIRLS. GIRLS CONSISTENTLY CONSIDERED THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE DONE WHEN APPRAISING THE 'WRONGNESS' OF AN ACT. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT COURTS SHOULD EXAMINE INTENT WHEN DEALING WITH YOUNGER CHILDREN AND DESIGN INTERVENTION STRATEGIES BASED ON THE INDIVIDUAL CHILD'S UNDERSTANDING OF RIGHT AND WRONG. REFERENCES ARE INCLUDED. (GLR)