Pros And Cons Of Imposing Strict Liability

How does the law justify imposing strict liability for some criminal offences? ‘actus non facit nise men sit rea’ means an act alone cannot constitute guilt without the proof of a guilty mind, for most criminal cases. Strict Liability is the legal responsibility for injury or damages even if the person was not at fault or negligent; this contradicts the above Latin maxim as it places sole responsibility upon a defendant without the proof of ‘mens rea.’ Strict liability is a topic that has both its pros and cons, those of which I will discuss in this essay. In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which ‘mens rea’ (Latin for "guilty mind") does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the "actus reus" (Latin for
When considering the injustice caused by strict liability, it is also important to take into account the seriousness of the offences. In general strict liability offences are those of a less serious nature, such as regulatory offences relating to public safety. For some offences the prosecution would have a difficult time proving the defendant had the necessary men rea, if the offence was not a stict liability case, this results in many guilty defendants escaping conviction. If the defendants had some sort of mens rea such as knowingly or recklessly then it would make convictions very hard. For example, if a person could only be convicted of speeding if the prosecution could prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant was aware he was speeding, then it would be almost impossible to convict. However, enforcing speed limits, as with many other strict liability offences, is done in the interest of public safety and as such can be seen as important to protect the public from