§ 6.01   Conduct Prohibited by Strict Liability Statutes

 

Strict liability offenses are those that lack a mens rea requirement regarding one or more elements of the actus reus. For such statutorily enumerated offenses, the mere proof of the actus reus is sufficient for a conviction, regardless of the defendant’s state of mind at the time of commission.

 

Strict liability statutes often address so-called "public welfare" offenses.  Such statutes are aimed at conduct that, although not morally wrongful, could gravely affect the health, safety, or welfare of a significant portion of the public. Examples include statutes that prohibit the manufacture or sale of impure food or drugs to the public, anti-pollution environmental laws, as well as traffic and motor-vehicle regulations.

 

Strict liability statutes also regulate other types of conduct against individuals, such as the offense of statutory rape which is aimed at protecting underage females who may be too immature to make knowing decisions about sexual activity.

 

§ 6.02   Presumption Against Strict Liability

 

While strict liability statutes are not per se unconstitutional, at least under due process grounds [United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250 (1922)], the Court has indicated that there is a presumption against strict liability absent a contrary legislative purpose.  [Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952); United States v. United States Gypsum Co [438 U.S. 422 (1978)] Thus, most courts will interpret a federal or state statute, otherwise silent in regard to mens rea, as containing an implicit requirement of some level of moral culpability. 

 

§ 6.03   Model Penal Code

 

The Model Penal Code does not recognize strict liability, except with respect to offenses graded as "violations."  For all other offenses, section 2.02 requires the prosecution to prove some form of culpability regarding each material element.