Essay on Strict Liability Crimes
Having no element for Mens Rea, consequently permits punishment on those that may be blameless to a crime. With that fact, there is definitely a wide range of controversial pro's and con's. I personally am unbiased either way regarding this topic, for any and all concerns I feel are legitimate. What I will set forth here is unbiased opinion and facts to all pro's and con's.
In this world there are many regular civilians and citizens that may encounter, in some form or another, an inconvenience, mishap or even loss on many degrees' due to someone's negligence or culpable liability. Which will lead me to one's take on the pro's or benefit to the existence of strict liability crimes.
First and foremost, when someone is hurt or harmed, they want recourse and they want it from whomever is liable, or from the closes person to that liable party. So they care nothing about ones blamelessness or mental intent, which in this case the law would not hold prudent anyway. To them and to the law “public health and safety come first.” For them an act alone is all that would actually need to be proved. For if that were not the case, then the possible victims would not have any remedy under the law. Further more, the benefits to society outweighs the cost of punishing those that may have no true blame.
As for the con's in strict liability offenses, one might argue that being held liable without subjective or objective fault may be a violation to the U.S. Constitution. Where this stipulation actually contradicts the Model Penal Code (MPC) etc. on criminal liability and the stature of concurrence. Further more, with there being no actual or effective means on protection against strict liability or accidents, leaves a broad range of exceptional blameworthiness. Where “they” could say “we are the victims!” adversely this could jeopardize...