Strict Liability Crimes: Offenses Where Intent Doesn't Matter

In the realm of criminal law, some offenses fall under the category of "strict liability." This means that a person can be held criminally responsible simply for committing the act, regardless of their intent or whether they were negligent. These offenses are primarily associated with regulatory laws designed to safeguard public health and safety.

Key Characteristics of Strict Liability Crimes:

• No Proof of Intent (Mens Rea) Required: Unlike most criminal offenses, prosecutors don't need to prove the defendant intended to commit the crime or acted negligently.
• Focus on the Act Itself: Liability is established by proving the prohibited act occurred.
• Regulatory Nature: These crimes often stem from regulations aimed at protecting the public welfare.
• Public Welfare Offenses: Strict liability offenses are commonly related to:
  • Traffic violations
  • Food and drug regulations
  • Environmental protection laws
• Emphasis on Compliance: The primary goal is to ensure adherence to regulations, preventing widespread harm.
• Lighter Penalties: Generally, these offenses carry less severe penalties compared to crimes requiring proof of intent. The focus is on enforcement rather than harsh punishment.
• No Significant Moral Stigma: Convictions typically don't result in significant moral condemnation or reputational damage.

Examples of Strict Liability Offenses:

• Selling alcohol to minors
• Misbranding or mislabeling products
• Violating environmental regulations (e.g., improper hazardous waste disposal)
• Operating an unlicensed business (e.g., an unlicensed cannabis dispensary)

How Courts Determine Strict Liability:

• Legislative Intent: Courts examine the statute's language and legislative history to determine if the legislature intended it to be a strict liability offense.
• Statutory Language: The absence of terms like "knowingly" or "intentionally" can indicate strict liability.
• Severity of Penalties: If penalties are relatively light, it supports the argument for strict liability.

Limitations of Strict Liability:

• Intent Required by Statute: If a statute explicitly requires proof of intent, strict liability does not apply.
• Severe Penalties: If the penalties are severe, courts may require proof of intent.

The Constitutional Challenges

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is the federal appellate court that covers a very wide area on the West Coast of the United States including California.

In a criminal case titled United States versus Kantor the court looked at a situation where pornographic movie producers were charged with violating a statute against making a sexually explicit film with minors. The film featured a 16-year-old actress whose stage name was Traci Lords.

The producers had argued that the law was unconstitutional because it did not require that they deliberately used an actress who was under 18 years of age.

The Ninth Circuit agreed that if they were barred from presenting a defense the law was unconstitutional.

To make the law constitutional, the Ninth Circuit allowed the trial court to allow the producers to claim innocence by showing their lack of knowledge about the actress’s age. The Court understood that this was a strict liability statute as written but that by letting the defendants argue an innocent state of mind the statute was bootstrapped out of being an unfair strict liability crime and into the realm of being a properly charged crime.

In summary, strict liability crimes prioritize public safety and regulatory compliance over individual intent. They are designed to enforce essential regulations efficiently, even without proving criminal intent.