There should never be a strict liability element in a criminal law Essay

There should never be a unmitigated obligation fraction in a criminal law offence. There should never be punishment without fault. C - Essay ExampleCriminal liability is a stringent provision since the defendants are likely to be convicted even if they were truly unaware of one or the multiple factors that labelled their acts as criminal offense. The defendants thitherfore, may not beculpableor guilty, in actual sense, i.e. absence of criminal negligence, the minimum blameworthy status withinmens rea. Thus, one may moot that strict liability in a true sense is an inappropriate use of the criminal law which, owing to the grave implications that it have on a wrongly convicted defendant, should be made permissible only for the regulating or governing serious crimes committed by the culpable miscreants. This article bequeath critically examine various cases and analyse whether there should not be a strict liability element within a criminal law offence, and there should never be pu nishment without fault. Discussion What are strict liability laws and their applications Strict liability laws enacted in the 19th century aimed at elevating the working conditions and establishing stock(a) safety norms within factories. The necessity to ascertain mens reas against the factory owners was not easy which culminated in very few prosecutions. The strict liability offences were created so as to fishing tackle the factory owners more effectively and to ensure that the rate of convictions increased. In the modern context, common strict liability offences today include the driving over the prescribe speed limit and selling of alcohol to underage persons. Although the contentious issue here pertains to the fact that a persons state of mind with which he/she acts should be made extraneous to his/her criminal liability (as opposed to the notions of how to deal with a defendant should he be proven guilty) it however, does not represent the law. This looking is particularly r elevant in the case of real crimes where defendants are generally not held as criminally liable, for their conduct, if they are innocent (Ashworth and Blake, 1997). In a sizable number of offences, however, a prosecuted may face convictions even though his behaviour was unintentional, was not aware, not reckless or negligent, as regards to a necessary element of the offence charged. In such cases, an individual is liable to face punishment though there may be a total lack or absence of any wrongdoing on his part, as per the elements in question, which come under strict liability laws (Lemon, 1979). The debate These laws are applicable either inregulatory offencesthat administer social behaviour, where the stigma associated with the convicted person is minimal. The laws are also applicable in cases where the society is concerned with the harm prevention and reduction, and wants to obtain blue deterrent values for a certain offense. However, a closer look at the various cases will r eveal that are chances that some of the imposition of strict liability may function unjustly in certain isolated cases. As for example, if we study the case Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwainwe will find that a pharmacist sold drugs to a patient who had produced a medical prescription that was a forged (Pharmaceutical Soc