What does the author conclude about strict liability?
Most crimes require a guilty mind: to be convicted of theft, one must have meant to take what belonged to another. Strict liability offences dispense with this requirement. A company that sells contaminated food is guilty whether or not anyone intended harm. Critics call this a stain on the criminal law, which should punish only the blameworthy. But the criticism is too sweeping. Strict liability is defensible where the activity is dangerous, the penalty is mild, and the defendant is in a position to prevent the harm by taking care. It is indefensible where a person could be imprisoned for an offence no reasonable care could have avoided. The line between the two is a matter of degree, not of principle.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: C. It is acceptable in some circumstances but not where heavy penalties apply to unavoidable harm
- Step 1: The author calls the criticism too sweeping and lists conditions for defensible use.
- Step 2: The last two sentences give the limits.
Answer
It is acceptable in some circumstances but not where heavy penalties apply to unavoidable harm.
Why not the others: Abolition, universal acceptance, equation with theft and application to imprisonable offences all contradict the text.
Practise more Criminal liability.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.