How Does the Law Justify the Imposition of Strict Liabilty For Some Offences?

Authors Avatar

Strict Liability Essay

HOW DOES THE LAW JUSTIFY THE IMPOSITION OF STRICT LIABILTY FOR SOME OFFENCES?

They are many arguments in favour of imposing strict liability and they are also many arguments against strict liability.

The law argues that strict liability promotes high standards of care. It protects the public from any dangerous practice. The aim of the criminal law is to protect any social damage therefore it is ridiculous if the law doesn’t look at who caused the harm whether its carelessness, accident or as a cause of negligence.

It also provides a strong prevention which is vital. Strict liability allows enforcing strict liability easier e.g. in Gammon it was argues that if the prosecution i.e. court had to prove mens rea in every regulatory offence then administering of justice may come to a standstill very quickly.

In many offences it is hard to prove the mens rea, therefore as a result of this people may escape conviction. This mat happen in large corporations where its hard to know what is happening.

Join now!

Strict liability cases are normally relating to businesses where the penalty is a fine. This has been criticised as people may just pay the fines all the time as they are small. Individual liberty is not under threat. It may be cheaper paying fines then changing bad working area therefore there is little deterrent. It has also been criticised that although many strict liability offences are far lesser crimes then rape etc, some do impose a severe fine or penalty e.g. Gammon.

Strict liability offences tend to be less stigmatic therefore there is no threat unlike murder etc.

Bearing in ...

This is a preview of the whole essay