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 mind strict liability has also been criticised. Many argue that how can strict liability be justified when a person has taken reasonable care to avoid committing the offence and to protect the public. Many argue that strict liability should only be imposed when mens rea is hard to prove e.g. rape.
Even when the penalty is small the conviction itself is a punishment. Many have argues that there is fewer stigmas attached whilst others have argued that there is some stigma attached to criminal conviction which shouldn’t be attached to someone who has taken reasonable care.
It is debatable whether strict liability works. Many argue that the deterrent of strict liability is overestimated. Being charges brings unwelcome publicity. This can be seen as a good thing as it will try and prevent the person or others in committing that offence again. However, even if the company isn’t convicted, the company is still likely to see a decrease in the sales.
It has been argued that in some areas, strict liability doesn’t ensure a high standard of care. If a person knows that they have taken reasonable care and are still going to be convicted, they are going to take fewer precautions. This has the opposite effect of what the aim of strict liability is.
It is true that the public need protecting but how is the public protected when punishing someone who took possible care and couldn’t have avoided committing the offence.
There is little administrative advantage. Cases still have to be detected and in some cases court have to look at the mens rea as well. Taking this into account you can see how much time and money is spent.
Whether strict liability is imposed depends on the statutory interpretation. Society may justify this but it does little for certainty in law and principles of similar cases should be treated alike. Courts are inconsistent in their justifications of imposing or not imposing strict liability e.g. Lim Chin Aik v R.
In some cases the courts expect extreme precaution as was demonstrated in the case of Smedleys v Breed. In this case “d” was convicted under the Food and Drugs Act 1955, where a small caterpillar was found in one of he three million tins of peas. However if the court had followed the reasoning in Lim Chin Aik then “d” would not have been liable.
Vicarious liability is applied where the law is faced with regulatory offences. It means where one legal person is held liable for the acts of another human being. This encourages the idea of employer having being more responsible. It also provides a workforce which is trained and employers are in a better position then the employee. Bearing in mind that people aren’t normally held liable for acts of another. This only applies to vicarious liability.
Many argue that strict liability is a bad thing whilst on the other hands others argue that it is a good thing. Basically, they are 2 views on this issue. We cannot conclude as there is no fix answer but we do have to consider that they are alternatives to strict liability that would be less unjust and more effective in stopping harm. The alternative is better inspection of business premises.
The law commissions draft criminal liability bill of 1977 argue that parliament must state whether it is a strict liability offence, if they don’t then the court should consider the men’s rea. If the courts were to decide whether the offence is strict liability or not then it would lead to many problems as with case Lim Chin Aik. Many argue that strict liability should be replaced by liability for negligence. This way it would not punish those who are blameless. However many people agree that strict liability should be imposed for all crimes except where the punishment is sentencing.