• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Is the imposition of strict liability ever justifiable in criminal law?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Is the imposition of strict liability ever justifiable in criminal law? It is the purpose of this essay to discuss whether the implementation of strict liability within criminal law system is a necessary means for combating crime, and if there is any justification for its use. Strict liability is the placing of liability upon the defendant(s), regardless of whether or not mens rea is present. This can include instances of negligence, carelessness or accident. There are a number of arguments for and against strict liability, and this essay will identify and explore these arguments. It is often argued that by promoting high standards of care, strict liability protects the liberty of the public from dangerous practices. Barbara Wootton (Crime and Criminal Law: reflections of a Magistrates and Social Scientist, 1981, p.256-258) defends strict liability on this basis, suggesting that the objective of criminal law is to prevent 'socially damaging activities'. In support of this, it is suggested by Elliot and Quinn (Criminal Law, 2000, p.32) that- 'It would be absurd to turn a blind eye to those who cause harm due to carelessness, negligence or even an accident'. This approach appears to be stringent. One might be inclined to suggest that accident is part of human nature, and in applying strict liability to even the most honest mistakes, a satisfactory outcome may not be achieved. ...read more.

Middle

Without strict liability, those genuinely guilty may escape conviction. Roe (p.211.2) tells us that obvious examples are those involving 'large corporations, where it may be difficult to prove that someone knew what was happening'. The imposition of strict liability in these instances is favourable. In many strict liability cases, the defendant is a business or corporate body, and the penalty is a usually a fine. Therefore, individual civil liberty is not under threat. Elliot and Quinn (p.33.2) also go on to tell us that where an offence is concerned with a business or corporate body, those committing the offence may well be saving themselves money, and thereby making extra profit in doing so. For example, they may be spending less time on observing safety regulations in place. If a person/body creates such risk in order to maximise profits, it can be argued that they should be held liable if that risk causes-or could cause- harm, even if there was no intention of doing so. Of course, where there are arguments for the imposition of strict liability, there are arguments against. One of the biggest arguments presented against the imposition of strict liability is that it is often criticised as being unjust, for a variety of different reasons. ...read more.

Conclusion

Perhaps in this area, the imposition of strict liability is not affective. As Roe (p.213) tells us- 'There are alternatives to strict liability which would be less unjust and more effective in preventing harm.' Smith and Hogan (P.221) suggest the replacement of strict liability with liability for negligence. It is the opinion of this essay that this would be advantageous; this may ensure that the defendant, who perhaps was thoughtless in their actions, or those deliberately intending to commit a crime, is punished. It would not, however, punish those who were genuinely blameless. Within the legal system of Australia, there is the defence of 'all due care'. Where a crime would otherwise impose strict liability, the defendant can avoid conviction by proving that they had taken all due care to avoid committing the offence. Adopting a similar defence in this country may prove useful, counter-balancing any disadvantages for having strict liability. It is the opinion of this essay that there are occasions where the imposition of strict liability is justified, in particular areas of industry. Abolition of strict liability would ignore the numerous advantages given in this essay. It is, however, questionable whether strict liability proves a sufficient deterrent, and often, the outcomes of cases can be seen as being morally unsatisfactory. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Law essays

  1. Criminal Law (Offences against the person) - revision notes

    When the defendant has taken action which was not the cause of the victims death, the defendants actions are described as DE MINIMUS. Legal Causation Under English law the prosecution must prove that the defendant's actions were an OPERATIVE and SUBSTANTIAL cause of death.

  2. Law- Strict liability, mens rea actus reus

    Specific intention is not easily defined. However, in the case of R. v. Mohan (1976) it was held that the reason for the defendant's act was not important, as long as the defendant made a decision to act which brought about the consequence which lead to a crime specific intention is established.

  1. The criminal process

    Bail from the police station depends on if you have been charged (see above). Bail from a police station is governed by PACE section 38. Bail from the police station involves being released without charge and you are told to report back to the police station at a given date/time

  2. The Age Of Criminal Responsibility

    I think it's important to take these things into account when using the BBC News website for research. Overall, I think that the BBC News website is a credible source for research with a low risk of possible bias. My reasons for this are that a reporter for the BBC

  1. Law in association with the criminalisation of certain drugs.

    counter-productive, and it has failed to adequately protect the individual and society as a whole from the negative effects of drug use. Commentators continue to ask what the solution is to our drug problem. But the truth is that there is no one solution to the drug problem.53 A drug

  2. Should juvenile offenders be treated differently to adult offenders?

    suspect in respect to a crime made before the start of that amendment, but only if the suspect is charged with the crime on or after that commencement. The NSW Attorney General John Hatzistergos states "the Government is pleased to introduce the Bail Amendment Bill 2007.

  1. Vicariouis liability and article 21

    so basically we can say that it is a merging of constitutional law with law of torts .In order with far reaching consequences, the Supreme Court of India has extended the scope of article 21 of the Indian Constitution (protection of life and personal liberty )

  2. What is an indictable offence and how is it brought to trial?

    agrees, he directs the jury to return a verdict of "not guilty" and the case comes to an end. If the defence does not make a submission, or if the submission is rejected, the defence may call witnesses who are examined in chief and cross-examined by the prosecutor.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work