Strict Liability and Trivial Drug Offenses.

[Captain_Amazing]

@AmunRa

I assume this addresses the non sequitur of unknowingly possessing drugs with intent to distribute them?

Can you unknowingly possess drugs with intent to distribute? That would definitely be strict liability application if it occurred. Can you show it occurs?

[AmunRa]

@Captain_Amazing

Can you unknowingly possess drugs with intent to distribute? That would definitely be strict liability application if it occurred. Can you show it occurs?

My point was that it can’t occur. Your post seemed to imply that you could be held liable for possessing drugs with the intent to distribute them even if you didn’t knowingly possess them. Richard Parker’s post implies that strict liability only applies to part of the statute. I was asking for confirmation of that implication.

[dzero]

@Captain_Amazing

Looking at drug crimes, it looks like the “schoolyard statute” is strict liability (21 USC 860, possessing with intent to distribute or manufacturing illegal drugs within 1000 feet of a school, university, playground or public housing or 100 feet of a youth center, swimming pool or video arcade doubles the sentence). Also, 21 USC 861 (forbidding people to employ minors to sell drugs) is strict liability (see US v Chin and US v Cook).

It also looks like some of the Len Bias laws making drug manufacturers or distributors responsible for overdoes deaths are, or at least were, strict liability. (State v Ervin)

This was my first thought - at least the NJ version of this law. I think the standard for such a law would have to be very high indeed since criminal law is based upon having evil intent (mens rea). With statutory rape for example, I assume that the idea of protecting children from predators who might otherwise weasel out of a conviction takes precedence.

But I wasn’t going to post just to say that. I wanted to highlight a related situation which might be construed as strict liability which I don’t believe is - although I suppose it would depend on exactly how the case law and/or statutes read.

I’m thinking of constructive possession. For example, if you’re at a party and there is a pile of cocaine on the livingroom table and the cops conduct a raid, then everyone at the party can be considered to be in constructive possession of that cocaine.

It’s been a long time and I don’t remember if they have to show actual knowledge of the drugs or if mere presence is sufficient. I assume that in the former case it would not be considered strict liability while in the latter case it would.

[Captain_Amazing]

@AmunRa

My point was that it can’t occur. Your post seemed to imply that you could be held liable for possessing drugs with the intent to distribute them even if you didn’t knowingly possess them. Richard Parker’s post implies that strict liability only applies to part of the statute. I was asking for confirmation of that implication.

No, what I meant is that you could be convicted for distributing drugs within 1000 feet of a school even if you didn’t know you were within 1000 feet of a school.

[TriPolar]

Okay legalistas, can the insanity defense be used in statuatory crimes like sex with a minor, or distributing drugs with 1000 feet of a school yard? How does this all tie into the concept of criminal intent?

[dzero]

@TriPolar

Okay legalistas, can the insanity defense be used in statuatory crimes like sex with a minor, or distributing drugs with 1000 feet of a school yard? How does this all tie into the concept of criminal intent?

That’s a really interesting point. For strict criminal liability, you want to punish someone even if they didn’t know what they were doing. Since this is the essence of an insanity defense, it shouldn’t matter. To be accurate, I think that insanity really goes more to whether someone could tell right from wrong. So you could argue that the purpose of strict liability statutes could never be served by punishing someone who did not know right from wrong. I’ll be interested to hear other and more informed opinions.