Sceptic wrote:Would they be immune from prosecution if they do not understand epistemology :?:
This is a very difficult issue because it goes deeper.
If a child commits a crime, the parents should be held liable because they took the risk of introducing someone into society, so they're responsible for that child's socialization. If that child never grows up, then the parents could be indefinitely liable for the child. In the case that the parents die before the child grows up, society's liability to the child would end as well. If the child wishes to continue its education, it would be liable to afford the cost of education first when graduating as an adult, but the child would have to show perpetual improvement so we know society isn't wasting resources in the mean time.
However, if the child never grows up, it shouldn't have more than minimal access to public infrastructure, so I'm not sure how far it could go to perform crimes in the first place. In the worst case scenario, there could indeed come a point where the child is exiled from society and treated as an outlaw, but it would take a tremendously rigorous procedure to get to this point (except in the most heinous of crimes).
In short, those who understand epistemology are not required to be vulnerable to those who do not. If we do make them vulnerable, it defeats the purpose of discovering what it is to be a law abiding citizen (unless we admit the rule of law's purpose is to intimidate and manipulate).