Assignment 1

Assignment 01

Steven Solis

Assignment 01

Strict liability, in Law of Tort, are those crimes do not necessitate any men rea (intention to commit crime). If a person is held responsible for a crime or harming another person, will be convicted, despite ignorance of nature or consequences of crime ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"0eLHnDsz","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Richard A. Epstein, n.d.)","plainCitation":"(Richard A. Epstein, n.d.)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":227,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/PBIZQUEN"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/PBIZQUEN"],"itemData":{"id":227,"type":"article-journal","title":"A Theory of Strict Liability","container-title":"The Journal of Legal Studies","page":"151-204","volume":"2","issue":"1","author":[{"literal":"Richard A. Epstein"}]}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Richard A. Epstein, n.d.).

The strict liability crime includes statutory rape, selling alcohol to minor, traffic offense, liability of owner if its animal of owner injures person or animal, product liability, abnormally dangerous activities. The similarity among these strict liability crimes are the severe consequences and losses of the criminal act. A crime like negligence in usage of quality raw material in construction of a building, which results in death of hundreds, has same consequences as incident where building is blown by bomb. The conduction acts of strict liability may be different, but all these actions can potentially claim lives or cause irreparable damage in similar manner. Criminals for these big or small crimes are convicted in similar fashion. The first ever case of strict liability was when proprietor of The News was charged for defamation of Lord Cowper. However, the newspaper was run by his son and he had no knowledge of this publication. The case was actually mis-interpretation of law at that time ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"vmjgfg2i","properties":{"unsorted":true,"formattedCitation":"(Manchester, 1977)","plainCitation":"(Manchester, 1977)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":226,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/NCMLDG86"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/NCMLDG86"],"itemData":{"id":226,"type":"article-journal","title":"The Origins of Strict Criminal Liability","container-title":"Anglo-American Law Review","page":"277-283","volume":"6","issue":"4","source":"DOI.org (Crossref)","DOI":"10.1177/147377957700600404","ISSN":"0308-6569","journalAbbreviation":"Anglo-American Law Review","language":"en","author":[{"family":"Manchester","given":"Colin"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["1977",10]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Manchester, 1977).

The reason was for this law is to ensure justice and sense of responsibility in people. These liabilities can give rise to prejudice and inequality if not kept in check. In case of statutory rape, the prosecution does not need to prove that the suspect knew about age of minor or not ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"fuWZTGMw","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Carpenter, 2004)","plainCitation":"(Carpenter, 2004)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":229,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/QG2V2BJN"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/QG2V2BJN"],"itemData":{"id":229,"type":"article-journal","title":"On Statutory Rape, Strict Liability, and the Public Welfare Offense Model","page":"81","source":"Zotero","abstract":"Statutory Rape. At the center of a long-standing debate on whether its commission should require proof of a criminal mens rea, the prosecution of statutory rape offers a revealing look at the struggle to demarcate the parameters of the public welfare offense doctrine. Specifically, with respect to statutory rape, disagreement is deep and entrenched on whether statutory rape should be categorized as a public welfare offense, which would render irrelevant defendant's lack of knowledge of the victim's age. And despite wholesale revamping of state statutory rape laws on issues of age, gender, and potential grading and punishment, the debate on whether to require a criminal mens rea or embrace strict liability continues. So, how has it come to pass that this particular crime has engendered such serious division of thought regarding the requirement of a mens rea? This Article argues that, fueled in part by a misplaced reliance on dicta from the landmark decision of Morissette v. United States, most states have concluded that statutory rape is a strict liability offense. But as this Article shows, the landscape has changed dramatically since Morissette was written in 1952. Like the child's puzzle book that asks the question, \"Which item doesn't belong?\" this Article argues that the public welfare offense model's application to statutory rape is, by current standards, strained and outmoded. Statutory rape as a strict liability crime only works because blameworthiness - a cornerstone of punishment has been replaced by a different sensibility: the strict assumption of the risk that the actor bears when engaging in sexual activity. This paradigmatic shift from blameworthiness to assumption of the risk remains a vital rationale in statutory rape only if the actor can be expected to appreciate that engaging in a broad range of sexual activities may be proscribed by statute. As this Article demonstrates, because of Lawrence v. Texas and its progeny, it may no longer be accurate to say that engaging in sexual activity is the criminally risky business envisioned by the Morissette Court in 1952 when statutory rape was just one of many statutes criminalizing sexual activity. And without notice that engaging in adult sexual behavior may be subject to widespread regulation, this Article concludes that it is time for the United States Supreme Court to redefine the parameters of the public welfare offense doctrine as it applies to statutory rape and allow defendants to mount a reasonable mistake-of-age defense.","language":"en","author":[{"family":"Carpenter","given":"Catherine L"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2004",3,2]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Carpenter, 2004). It is to guarantee safety of a minor and that the criminal does not get away with excuse of ignorance. Secondly, selling alcohol to minor can have harsh consequences and lead to major societal issues. It is made a strict liability to avoid such practice at all cost. In this way, seller would be cautious of every sale. To avoid tragic incidents and aware the drivers about the consequences of careless driving, traffic offense is considered as strict liability. The punishment for minor traffic offenses is usually small. The owner of an animal is held liable for any damage the animal causes so that the owner take responsibility and take necessary action to prevent harm from an animal as it is a social security concern. Product liability is stated as strict liabilities so that the companies manufacturing the products, will not only focus on the profit rather they will be mindful of the consequences for customers. Lastly, performing any hazardous activity which may negatively impact the people nearby is stated as strict liability, to avoid the damage and chaos that may follow such activities.

The cultural reasoning for a strict liability crime may arise from the concept that one is free to follow his/her culture disregard of how it impacts others. It is observed that numerous times the crime is related to a cultural practice. For some people believes overpower the sense of responsibility. For example, under influence of culture, banishing of a young kid from an interracial marriage, from the family. It will be considered a strict liability if the kid does not survive.

The basic principle of Presumption of innocence is that the suspect will be considered innocent until he/she is proven guilty of crime ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"3xPo42ML","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Tadros & work(s):, 2004)","plainCitation":"(Tadros & work(s):, 2004)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":231,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/8VE6T2X5"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/8VE6T2X5"],"itemData":{"id":231,"type":"article-journal","title":"The Presumption of Innocence and the Human Rights Act","container-title":"The Modern Law Review","page":"402-434","volume":"67","issue":"3","source":"Zotero","language":"en","author":[{"family":"Tadros","given":"Victor"},{"family":"work(s):","given":"Stephen Tierney Reviewed"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2004"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Tadros & work(s):, 2004). According to this concept, generally suspects does not have to prove their innocence. The prosecution is held responsible for providing sufficient evidence that the suspect is guilty and also the intention to commit the crime ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION {"citationID":"HkIJDUHr","properties":{"formattedCitation":"(Duff, 2005)","plainCitation":"(Duff, 2005)","noteIndex":0},"citationItems":[{"id":234,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/S8IZXQKD"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/local/YgsdZK9k/items/S8IZXQKD"],"itemData":{"id":234,"type":"article-journal","title":"Strict liability, legal presumptions, and the presumption of innocence","container-title":"Appraising Strict Liability, Oxford University Press, Oxford","page":"125-149","journalAbbreviation":"Appraising Strict Liability, Oxford University Press, Oxford","author":[{"family":"Duff","given":"RA"}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2005"]]}}}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"} (Duff, 2005). However, in case of strict liability, the prosecution does not have to present the intent to commit murder, it only must prove that suspect committed the violation.

References

ADDIN ZOTERO_BIBL {"uncited":[],"omitted":[],"custom":[]} CSL_BIBLIOGRAPHY Carpenter, C. L. (2004). On Statutory Rape, Strict Liability, and the Public Welfare Offense Model. 81.

Duff, R. (2005). Strict liability, legal presumptions, and the presumption of innocence. Appraising Strict Liability, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 125–149.

Manchester, C. (1977). The Origins of Strict Criminal Liability. Anglo-American Law Review, 6(4), 277–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/147377957700600404

Richard A. Epstein. (n.d.). A Theory of Strict Liability. The Journal of Legal Studies, 2(1), 151–204.

Tadros, V., & work(s):, S. T. R. (2004). The Presumption of Innocence and the Human Rights Act. The Modern Law Review, 67(3), 402–434.