Why are Strict Liability Offences good/bad?
Strict liability is necessary in some offences, but not innappropriate in others. Strict liability is (mostly in civil law, but in some cases in criminal law, too) when a person can be held liable for something, without guilt or negligence needing to be proved. For example, if you run a fairground and a ride breaks causing injuries and/or death, you (or your insurers if you were properly insured) would be liable. Similarly, if you manufacture a food product and, unknown to you, a poison is inserted into the product, you are liable for the consquences. In some cases, strict liability is found in criminal law, for example, traffic offences. For example, it is illegal to drive above the legal speed limit. You can be found guilty of this offence without knowing the correct speed limit. However, most criminal offences are not strict liability, ie, they require actus reus (the offence was committed) and the mens rea (the intention of guilt or gross negligence). For example, murder. If you pu
