30 Jan 12 When is Strict Liability applied in US Criminal Law?
Strict Liability is usually not something you hear of when referring to criminal law matters. However, that is because most people are more familiar with strict liability as it pertains to lawsuits filed in regards to defective products. Strict liability in criminal law actually adheres to the same doctrine—a person is responsible for any damages or harm their actions may have caused regardless of any intention to do harm or cause damage.
To understand strict liability as it pertains to criminal law, we must first recognize that “intent” is the degree by which the law measures culpability in most criminal acts.
Intention to commit a criminal act
Every criminal act involves some level of mens rea (the mental state of the person committing the act). Justice Holmes’s statement, “Even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked,” applies a very easy form of reference when thinking about mens rea. The intent of the offender is the most important element in criminal law. Did the offender intend to kick the dog, or did he just happen to trip right where the dog lay? The answer can only be determined if we know or believe to know the thought process of the individual—and therein often lies the difficulty in establishing guilt.
However, strict liability in criminal law nullifies having to know intent, and makes certain acts criminal regardless of whether there was intent on the part of the offender. Such laws where strict liability exists are as simple as a parking ticket. The prosecutor does not need to prove that he intended to park in the wrong place, it only matters that he did. Another law whereby strict liability is adopted is selling liquor to an underage person (minor). Whether she intended to sell liquor to an underage person or knew the person was a minor does not matter. Only that she, in fact, did sell liquor to a person not of legal age. Therefore, it is not an adequate defense for someone to say, “I didn’t know”—whether one knows or did not is irrelevant. In more serious criminal offenses such as statutory rape — strict liability is the norm. The perpetrator’s intent does not come into question— only that the child was of a certain age and because the offender not had knowledge of the child’s age is not justification for committing such an offense.
19 May 10 Criminal defenses: insanity of mental disorder
The idea of using a plea of insanity as a legal defense in a criminal case is not new. The penal code written in France more than 200 years ago said,in part,”There has been no offense is the accused person was insane or was compelled by a force they could not resist”. So,what do they mean by “a force they could not resist”? It could be interpreted as meaning drug addiction. Suppose a man is addicted to drugs,so he robs a bank to get money so he can buy more drugs. His addiction compelled him to rob the bank. This concept laid the foundation for methadone treatment programs because it implied that drug addicts were not really guilty of a crime,they were compelled to commit criminal acts by the drugs they took. So,today a judge may order a drug addict to participate in a methadone treatment program,instead of sending him to prison.
Although a drug addict may be compelled by his addiction,the legal concept of insanity does not require the attorney to prove that mental illness compelled the insane person to do anything. The idea that mental illness compels you to do something is not a valid legal concept. It’s like saying a rapist was compelled by his own sexual desires,so he had to rape a woman. Rape is not legally justified even if you claim your sexual desired were overwhelming. It could be demonstrated that millions of men experience sexual desires,but they don’t go out and rape women. What we’re really talking about here is diminished capacity. The court has to consider the mental capacity of the accused person. Did he have enough metal capacity to form the intent to commit a criminal act?
Mental capacity means intelligence. It’s not a measure of morality. Often,people say that mental capacity means the capacity means tell the difference between right and wrong. That standard implies the capacity to make a moral decision. Is it morally right or morally wrong to rape a woman? Is it morally right or morally wrong to rob a bank? Mental capacity as a legal standard does not require any expression of morality,or any understanding of morality. The standard is based on a person’s capacity to understand whether the act is illegal or not. So,if you understand it’s illegal to rape a woman,or it’s illegal to rob a bank,you are not insane,according to this legal standard.
21 Jan 08 Criminal Defense: a famous lawyer on the OJ Simpson’s Case
Top Us Criminal Defense Lawyer Michael Biniakewitz gives free legal advice to callers at the radio. Look at this free video and learn some useful tips on criminal defense
