Strict Liability

One of the underlying precepts of criminal law is a Latin maxim that holds 'there can be no guilt without a guilty mind'. The offender must have knowledge of his act and intent. The Latin term for "guilty mind" is mens rea. This standard remains a foundation of statute law today, but as our society has grown more complex the law governing findings of guilt has expanded and become more
intricate.

Guilt without the Guilty Mind

This social transition and the regulatory burdens that have grown from it were eloquently defined in the opinion written by Justice Jackson in Morisette v. United States. "The industrial revolution multiplied…workmen exposed to injury…increasingly powerful and complex mechanisms…requiring higher precautions by employers." "Wide distribution of goods became an instrument of wide distribution of harm when those who dispersed…did not comply with reasonable standards of quality, integrity, disclosure and care."

"Such dangers have engendered increasingly numerous and detailed regulations which heighten the duties of those in control of…public health, safety or welfare." "…Lawmakers, whether wisely or not, have sought to make such regulations more effective by invoking criminal sanctions…This has confronted the courts with a multitude of prosecutions…for…'public welfare offenses'."

"These cases do not fit neatly into…classifications of common law offenses." "…(T)hese offenses… are in the nature of neglect where the law requires care, or inaction where it imposes a duty." "While such offenses do not threaten the security of the state they may be regarded as offenses against its authority, for their occurrence impairs the…controls…deemed essential to the social order…" "In this respect the injury is the same…" "Hence, legislation applicable to such offenses…does not specify intent as a necessary element." "…(C)ourts have turned to construing (such) statutes…as…holding that the guilty act alone makes out the crime."

Such is the nature of "strict liability." It may apply to regulatory, public welfare, and protective statutes focused on children. Though a legislature is free to eliminate mens rea from a statutory offense, the courts have held that such freedom is limited. In Dennis v.U.S. the Court wrote that "the existence of mens rea is the rule of, rather than the exception to, the principles of Anglo-American criminal jurisprudence."

Examples

The courts have upheld legislation prohibiting the following offenses as legal though they lack the requirement of mens rea:

• Selling liquor to a minor;

• Selling adulterated food or drugs;

• Selling misbranded articles;

• Carrying a concealed weapon;

• Admitting a minor to a saloon;

• Employing a child under 14 years of age;

• Subscribing to false statement regarding securities;

• Selling property subject to a lien without consent of the lien holder;

• Operating an automobile without a rear light;

• Violating an automobile parking regulation;

• Exceeding the speed limit.

A Comment on Consequences

In Morisette v U.S. Justice Jackson went on to write, "A relation between some mental element and punishment for a harmful act is almost as instinctive as a child's familiar exculpatory 'But I didn't mean to' and has afforded the rational basis for a tardy and unfinished substitution of deterrence and reformation in place of retaliation and vengeance as the motivation for public prosecution."