In case you don’t know, strict liability crimes are crimes that don’t require intent.
My law dictionary says they are primarily minor civil infractions, although some more serious drug charges may be strict liability crimes too. It doesn’t state why, though.
What exactly is the legal logic behind strict liability crimes? Aren’t they always inherently unfair (even for minor civil infractions?)?
Thank you in advance to all who reply:).
There are a lot of strict liability crimes in the field in which I practice. I don’t know that there is a single answer.
I’ve heard it said that strict liability is appropriate for crimes for which intent - although probably present - would be too hard to prove. I’ve also heard it said, rather more cynically, that strict liability is for crimes where intent is probably not present but the community wants someone convicted anyway.
A high profile US lawyer I know often gives this example of the inconsistencies: under I believe the US Migratory Birds Act it’s a strict liability federal offence to kill a migratory bird. Consequently if you swerve off the road due to simple negligence (not gross negligence or recklessness) and hit a man carrying a migratory bird killing both, you will be convicted of a serious offence due to killing the bird but not the man. I hope I’ve got the details about correct, it’s a long time since I heard the example.
The economist David Friedman writes about the economic difference between the two here.
Essentially, the difference is that strict liability makes rational actors take into account all information they have about the potential costs to others from some action (since they’re on the line if they cause damage), while negligence makes rational actors take into account only the information that a court could reasonably discover.
Edit: Sorry, that’s about torts, not crimes. Nothing to see here.
IANAL, but I CAN read comics. Here is a nice discussion of strict liability. The writer has a very negative perception of it, in general.
I suppose the concept can be very useful if you are dealing with an important type of crime where it may be difficult to establish the actors frame of mind and easy to claim ignorance of most of the details of the crime. “I have NO idea how those BLANKS came to be in my footlocker!”
Strict Liability: Strict Liability pg 1 | The Illustrated Guide to Law
Here is a link to the Table of Contents: Contents | The Illustrated Guide to Law
Some mostly white lawyers elected by popular vote dreamed these laws up. For the most part, the people writing the laws will not actually have the laws abused against them. (prosecutors, judges, and juries give great deference to important people like politicians)
Stop assuming there is fundamental fairness in the law. Safer to assume it’s the collective scribblings of a bunch of idiots.
I think it’s important to be able to parse the logic behind the concept of fault. It’s often referred to as the spirit of the law, whereas without this context you simply have the letter.
No that is simply completely incorrect. For most crimes intent is not at all merely the spirit of the law. It is an explicit letter of the law requirement. For strict liability crimes, intent is not required by the spirit or letter of the law.
The one I’m most familiar with is strict liability for borrowing a horse. Or, later, a motor car.
And the logic is, they wanted to make it against the law.
Now they could have invented a new description for the crime “borrowing a horse without permission”, but it was easier at the time to modify the terms of the crime “stealing a horse” to include cases where your intent was to return it, rather than creating a new crime.
Wait, what? What is this strict liability horse crime?
She looked eighteen to me.
Then I asked for proof. She showed me her driver’s license which, it turns out, is a sophisticated fake.
So, let’s say it’s illegal to purchase marijuana. Then someone is selling “100% tobacco cigars.” You buy them, not knowing they actually contain marijuana. Would you really be guilty of breaking the law, under a strict-liability system?
Yes. That is the beauty of the system (for those who want to enforce a law). Sux for the rest of us.
Quoting myself here: this writer does a good job of showing how this develops and its implications. Basically it arises out of legislative and bureaucratic overreach, overreaction, and laziness.
yes, but that’s why most laws have an intent requirement. You have to intend to possess marijuana (you don’t have to know it’s illegal to do so) to be guilty.
You don’t have to intend to drive 70 mph to get a speeding ticket though. Makes sense to me.
Like many areas of the law, there are ridiculous results possible, but there really is a logic behind most of it.
Well, yes, the speed limit thing makes sense. Part of responsible driving is controlling your speed and maintaining your vehicle, so that you CAN control your speed. And ‘strict liability’ can really shorten the whining and excuse period.
BUT, except in cases of reckless driving probably involving injury or property damage, you’re really only talking fines, maybe with points and insurance issues. Many ‘strict liability’ crimes also can involve jail time.
Take for example, the marijauna-laced cigar mentioned above. It was bought in all innocence, that is without knowledge of its illegal content. The vendor may have sold it in all innocence. It could be gifted to you, and accepted in all innocence. While I understand that society doesn’t want lawbreakers hiding behind a “100% tobacco” label, you would like to see some effort to identify actual criminals, rather than resort to an easy application of labels.
There was a thread on this site about a year ago commenting about how most of us are actually unknowing lawbreakers (with potentially jailable offenses). This is mostly because of strict liability laws. While for many of us, this is never a problem, it lays out there as a potential problem. What if the law suddenly takes an interest in you?
Yes, but the marijuana laced cigar example is not a strict liability crime. I’m not aware of any US jurisdiction that would not allow “I didn’t know it was marijuana” defense" to that charge. Strict liability crimes are a bad idea for most offenses, and therefore, it should come as no surprise that most offenses are not “strict liability” crimes. The overwhelming majority of crimes require some level of intent, recklessness, or negligence. Usually actual intent
Yeah, IANAL and IANAC, so I don’t know a lot about criminal law. I was just going with the hypothetical.
Just substitute “100% chicken feathers” on the label and some protected migratory bird feather in the product.
Stealing a horse is /was a strict liablility crime like stealing a car. You may not intend to steal the car: you may be able to conclusively demonstrate that you had no intention of stealing the car. But if you take it and drive it around, that’s theft, because it is a strict liablity crime.
Might be different in your jurisdiction, but if it is, I’d bet they’ve made up some other legal fiction to make it illegal.
The majority of drug crimes **are **strict liability everywhere in the US on a federal level and in the majority of states- it’s ‘possession of a controlled substance’ that is the crime, and if the prosecutor can show you were in posession, that’s all they have to do in order to convict. You CAN use the defense that you didn’t know, but you won’t be declared not guilty by the judge (they might factor it into sentencing if you’re a convincing actor). The prosecution does not have to prove you intended to do anything with it unless they’re going for the seperate crime of possession with intent to sell- which is not strict liability, the prosecution MUST demonstrate intent in court or you cannot be declared guilty.
Strict liability does not restrict whether you can claim ignorance as a defense, only whether the prosecution must prove motive for a conviction, and for simple possession, they don’t. That’s why “It was for a friend/my glaucoma/I confiscated it” etc.never result in people being exonerated. Neither does “I didn’t know it was weed”. You, and you alone, know the truth of that, and the cops can’t possibly prove you did without a confession- but they don’t have to.