Strict liability offenses are both an anomaly and necessity in the US judicial system. They are an anomaly because they fly in the face of the 14 th Amendment of the US constitution with regard to every American being entitled to the due procedure. They are, however, a necessity because some notorious crimes would be almost incapable of punishment without strict liability. By definition, strict liability offenses are the kinds of offenses where mens rea is not a necessity for conviction. Normally, a criminal conviction will require the satisfaction of the two ingredients of actus reus and mens rea . Actus reus is the act that creates the criminal liability while mens rea is the mindset to do wrong or criminal intent (Martin & Storey, 2015). Whereas strict liability offenses can amount to a miscarriage of justice since defendants who intended no wrong can still be convicted, they are also necessary when criminal justice is viewed subjectively as a means to make the society a better place for all.
Criminal procedure is mainly viewed as objective where the state duels with the defendant based strictly on the letter of the law. Criminal law is so objective in America that if the state is shown to have breached rules of procedure, a criminal who is obviously liable of a crime can be let go (Martin & Storey, 2015). For example, if the state conducts an illegal search, an obviously guilty defendant can escape justice. A closer evaluation of why criminal laws are put in place and also why many resources are spent on such a system will bring to the fore a subjective perspective. Criminal proceedings are in existence either to discourage criminal conduct or remove criminals from the society both of which would result in a better community (Martin & Storey, 2015). Therefore, the criminal justice systems are supposed to serve the community as opposed to the community being held hostage by it. Strict liability offenses are put in place to prevent perpetrators from getting away with activities that are harmful to the community, simply because it is hard to tell if they intended to do wrong.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Most of the strict liability offenses are based on state law and relate to crimes that it would be hard to tell if the perpetrator intended to commit a crime. Under these laws, if mens rea was made a primary ingredient for conviction, then it is almost as if the laws do not exist at all, leading to impunity (Martin & Storey, 2015). For example, driving under the influence is a strict liability offense in most states. The state only needs to prove that the defendant was drunk when driving but not if they intended to drive while drunk. Intent would be very hard to prove under the circumstances. Conversely, impunity cannot be allowed for drunk drivers since the behavior is one of the leading killers in America. The same applies to a crime like statutory rape where the state only needs to prove that a sexual activity happened with a minor. Whether or not the defendant thought the minor had attained majority age would also be extremely hard to prove (Martin & Storey, 2015). Without strict liability offenses, the criminal justice system would be unable to reign some serious crimes thus rendering the entire system academic when it comes to societal betterment.
From the totality of the above, strict liability offenses are a sacrifice that the community makes in order to protect itself from the ills that come with some forms of crime. The community has a guaranteed protection against conviction unless due procedure is followed to establish both actus reus and mens reas . However, the community sacrifices this right to protect itself from some crimes, which although having the potential for a lot of harm, are very hard to establish criminal intent for. Based on the analysis above, the trade-off made in establishing strict liability offenses is fair.
References
Martin, J., & Storey, T. (2015). Unlocking criminal law . New York: Routledge
