Strict Liability

In earlier cases such as Staples, we have already seen discussion of strict liability. Those cases discussed when silence in a statute indicated Congress' intent to impose strict liability--only to decide that Congress intended some mens rea and not strict liability for the statutes before them.

Below we read cases in which the Court determines that Congress, or a state legislature, did intend strict liability. As with mens rea, courts use a variety of tools to determine whether a statute or element is strict liability. They rely on the principle announced in Balint--regulatory crimes are often strict liability--but those same cases will rely on other interpretative principles as well, such as the structure of the statute or legislative history. 

Finally, the term "strict liability" can be ambiguous, but it usually does not mean there is no mens rea for the statute at all. It usually means there is no mens rea for a particular element. We might say that such a statute is strict liability with respect to drug weight, for example. To say a statute is strict liability over all usually means that a key element that separates lawful from criminal conduct is strict liability. Even for those statutes, some mens rea is usually required for the conduct itself.