Which of the following best describes the presumption of doli incapax for children over the age of 7 but under 14?

The presumption of doli incapax pertains to the legal understanding that children between the ages of 7 and 14 are generally incapable of committing a crime due to their inability to understand the wrongdoing associated with their actions. This presumption is considered rebuttable, meaning that it can be challenged and overturned by evidence. For example, if a child in this age group demonstrates an understanding of right and wrong, this presumption may not apply, and the child could be held criminally responsible.

This rebuttable nature reflects the acknowledgment that some children may possess the maturity and comprehension necessary to grasp the implications of their actions, and therefore could be deemed criminally liable if proven so. This system aims to protect younger children from the consequences of criminal law while allowing for accountability as children develop.

Other options suggest either an absolute or conclusive presumption, which would not accurately reflect the nuances involved in assessing each child's individual circumstances, or imply that no presumption exists at all, neglecting the established legal framework that governs this age group. Hence, the best description of the presumption of doli incapax for children over the age of 7 but under 14 is indeed that it is a rebuttable presumption of incapacity.