Criminal Law and Philosophy 12 (3):427-438 (2018)

The fundamental requirement of Anglo-American criminal law is that crime must consist of the concurrence of a guilty mind—a mens rea—with a guilty act—an actus reus. And yet, the criminal law is shot through with discordant lumps of strict liability—crimes for which no mens rea is required. Ignoring the conventional normative objections to this aberration, I distinguish two different types of strict criminal liability: the type that arose at common law and the type associated with the public welfare offenses that are the product of twentieth and twenty-first century legislation. Using famous cases as exemplars, I analyze the two types of strict liability, and then examine the purposes served and incentives created by subjecting individuals to strict liability. I conclude that common law strict liability is rational in that it advances the purposes of the criminal law, while the public welfare offenses are at best pointless and at worst counterproductive. I suggest that in this respect the common law contains more wisdom than the results of the legislative process.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11572-017-9433-x
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,337
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Does Fault Matter?Vera Bergelson - 2018 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 12 (3):375-392.
Action, the Act Requirement and Criminal Liability.Antony Duff - 2004 - Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 55:69-103.
Appraising Strict Liability.Andrew Simester (ed.) - 2005 - Oxford University Press.
Legal and Moral Responsibility.Antony Duff - 2009 - Philosophy Compass 4 (6):978-986.
Aquinas on Crime.Charles P. Nemeth - 2008 - St. Augustine's Press.
Is There a Case for Strict Liability?Larry Alexander - 2018 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 12 (3):531-538.
What is a Crime?Grant Lamond - 2007 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 27 (4):609-632.
Strict Product Liability and the Unfairness Objection.Andrew Piker - 1998 - Journal of Business Ethics 17 (8):885-893.
Mens Rea by the Numbers.Gideon Yaffe - 2018 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 12 (3):393-409.


Added to PP index

Total views
11 ( #852,788 of 2,507,894 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #416,715 of 2,507,894 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes