• 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

    word insanity or comments to direct ion insanity or the case is ruined. Diminished responsibility can be defined as, "Abnormality of the mind, arrested or retarded development or disease or injury to the mind, as to severely affect the actions of the person."

  2. 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

  1. The Age Of Criminal Responsibility

    A child of 10 who has committed an offence is more appropriately dealt with in the care system than in the criminal justice system. The European court says that a child must be able to participate in their own defence and I think a child of 14 is able to do that.

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

    The NSW Government is also determined to assess the legal principle of Doli incapax which it is assumed that children aged between 10 to 14 years are incapable of knowing that criminal activity is wrong. Youth Justice Conferences: promote youthful offenders to take accountability for their actions and to discourage them from reoffending.

  1. 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.

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

    Approximately 50 per cent of drug offenders are convicted for possession or use of marijuana,41 and decriminalisation would save time and money, enabling the courts to concentrate on more serious matters.

  1. Justices of the Peace - Magistrates Courts

    Assessment Judicial confidence in the accuracy of jury verdicts is very high: Lord Salmon estimated in 1974 that no more than about two per cent of those brought to trial are wrongly acquitted by the jury, and Lord Elwyn-Jones LC said he could remember only one case in which he had doubts about a jury conviction.

  2. 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 )

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