Strict Liability Doctrine: Promoting Greater Enforcement Of The Law

Conducts of crimes are often characterized by two elements i.e. actus reus and mens rea. Strict liability offences are often described as crimes for which the element of mens rea is not required i.e. in such crimes liability is imposed irrespective of the defendant's knowledge or intentions. Hence, the strict liability doctrine rejects a reasonable mistake of a fact or circumstance as material to the finding of guilt. Due to its uncompromising nature, the strict liability doctrine has been historically reserved for two categories of crimes, namely 1) public welfare offences such as the sale of impure or adulterated foods or drugs, driving faster than the speed limit, the sale of intoxicating liquor to minors, improper handling of dangerous

Strict liability is distinct from liability due to negligence as under strict liability individuals may be imprisoned even if they take all possible precautions to act reasonably unlike in case of negligence. Thus, strict liability promotes high standards of care to avoid such conduct thereby protecting the public from dangerous or prohibited practices.

2. Promoting Greater Enforcement of the Law

Strict liability does away with the requirement of proof of intent or negligence on the part of the offender. Thus, it eases the burden on the prosecution to prove mental culpability in terms of intent or negligence in difficult cases.

3. Greater Protection for Public Safety

Strict liability in public welfare legislations is often justified on the ground that such are often not in the nature of Mala in se i.e. crimes that are considered wrong in and of itself but in the nature of Mala prohibita i.e. wrong because they are prohibited. Hence, in such offences, strict liability should apply as the risk of incorrect presumption in a particular case is outweighed by the need for additional protection of the health and safety of the

But strict liability goes against this theory of deterrence as it punishes even those people who have acted in good faith without any basis to believe that they were engaging in unlawful conduct. Hence, such punishments would not deter others from engaging in such behavior. Further, since strict liability is placed despite the reasonable precautions taken by an individual, the individual might be dis-incentivized to take even such precautions thus increasing the risk of such prohibited conducts.

2. Retributivist theory

Under the retributivist theory, the punishment is ought to be proportional to the mental and conscious culpability of an individual to commit the wrongful acts. Whereas, a strict liability defendant may be punished for an act that he was misled into committing or had not consciously decided to act in a manner that is violative society's norms. Strict liability doctrine does away with the good faith doctrine that absolves the defendant of liability if it can be established that he acted in good faith. Hence, it faces strong opposition from retributivist theory as well.

3.