NCJ Number
166223
Journal
International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice Volume: 20 Issue: 1 & 2 Dated: (Spring/Fall 1996) Pages: 117-128
Date Published
1996
Length
12 pages
Annotation
This article examines how different countries with common law traditions have dealt with strict liability crimes.
Abstract
Strict liability crimes require no proof of a mental element; proving the forbidden act suffices for conviction. This is discomforting under the common law tradition, since defendants who intended no wrong or even were unaware of the misdeed may be guilty. New Zealand, Australia, and Canada have responded by dividing non-mens-rea (no criminal state of mind) crimes into those in which liability is absolute and those in which, although conviction requires proof of no mental element, a defense negating mental guilt can be proven by the accused. Canada has furthermore abolished the former category and severely restricted the latter. Australia and New Zealand maintain a three-part classification of criminal state of mind, absolute liability, and strict liability. Some Indian jurisdictions have reached a similar result by different means. Meanwhile, even the American courts exploring similar solutions remain unaware of the 90 years of jurisprudence developing these concepts elsewhere. References, cases