To convict someone of a crime normally requires that a jury (or in some cases a

Question

To convict someone of a crime normally requires that a jury (or in some cases a judge) to find that the defendant had a specific intent to commit the crime. Other, special types of crimes do not require specific intent and only require the fact finder to determine if the act was actually committed; and if so, then the defendant is to be found guilty. These are generally referred to as "strict liability" crimes. Do you think the concept of strict liability crimes is fair? Should the state have to prove specific intent in all crimes? Why or why not?

Explanation / Answer

The concept of strict liability is fair.

While it is a general practice to prove intent or motive for a crime, the law of strict liability applies in scenarios where such intent cannot be proven. However, the harm/injury/loss that happens to someone is usually caused due to some reason. The strict liability allows this to follow a logical path.

For example, consider a toy manufacturer who produces toys with toxic materials and it harms the children. It is not necessary that the manufacturer had the intention to harm the children. Here there is no intent but the damage caused to the children is because of his actions and he should be liable. In such matters, the strict liability clause pins the responsibility with the toy manufacturer.

In such scenarios, if the state has to prove specific intent in order to prove the crime, the toy manufacturer will be absolved and may cause further damage to property and people.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.