A Comparative Study On Strict Liability Crimes

Strict liability crimes are important problems in the theory of the criminal law. This thesis on strict liability crimes includes five chapters. It is an introduction of the definition, features and essence of strict liability crimes and strict liability crimes in Anglo-American criminal Law. To my opinion, strict liability crimes are rational. And there are legal provisions about strict liability crimes in the current criminal law. The first chapter has mainly discussed on the definition, features and scopes of strict liability crimes. "Strict Liability Crimes"is the phrase used to refer to criminal offences that do not require the subjective aspects. In Anglo-American criminal law, strict liability crimes are often found in statutes dealing with, for example, the sale of alcohol, speeding and raping crimes with underage girls. Strict liability crimes do not require the subjective aspects, but it does not mean that the accused has no intentions on his behaviors. Strict liability crimes are based on the subjective aspects of the accused, too. In order to protect the public interest, the legislation presumes that the accused does have intentions of committing crimes, so long as he could not provide convincingly proof. The presumption of the subjective aspects is the essence of strict liability crimes. A presumption is a conclusion based on the normal relationship of things. When one thing exists, it is certain that the other will exist, too. In some crimes, the legislation considers that the accused has intentions on certain behaviors or results. If the accused can prove that he has no intentions of committing the crime, he will be sentenced innocent. That is the Presumption of the Subjective Aspects. The presumption of the subjective aspects is just a special case of responsibility theory and it is still a part of the theory. Strict liability crimes are just exceptional laws to the traditional criminal law theory. Thus strict liability crimes won't go against the responsibility theory. The second chapter is a brief introduction of strict liability crimes in Anglo-American criminal law. Strict liability crimes came from Anglo-American criminal law. In the nineteenth century, the judges firstly applied strict liability crimes to Common Law. Later, the judges and the legislators affected each other on this issue. Finally, strict liability crimes were established in Statute Law. In England, both common law and statute law give expressions to strict liability crimes. In Hong Kong, strict liability crimes are mostly minor offences. Generally, strict liability crimes are instituted by the legislation. But the legislation does not stipulate clearly and definitely enough and leave the problems how to apply strict liability crimes at that. So the judges have to construe statutes that appear to impose strict liability crimes. Because the interpretations of the judges are inconsistent, the development of strict liability crimes is full of twists and turns, for example, Sweet v. Parsley (1970), Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd. v. Attorney-General of Hong Kong (1985) AC 1. Moreover, the chapter has also introduced strict liability crimes in American criminal law. The third chapter discusses on the reasons for strict liability crimes in Anglo-American criminal law. Firstly, for the sake of safe and welfare of the public, some behaviors concerned public interests have been made strict liability crimes. Thus people would pay more attention to these behaviors, and take adequate measures to avoid breaking the law. Secondly, the absence of proof always leads to indulging crimes. In order to avoid indulging crimes, the legislation imposes strict liability crimes. In some cases, it's hard to prove the subjective aspects of the accused. Excessively persisting in proofs of the subjective aspects, the result will be that criminals escape from the punishment of the law. Imposing strict liability crimes would make things easier for prosecution. Utilitarianism, Objectivism and Community Responsibility Theories are the theoretical basis of strict liability crimes. Utilitarianism thinks that utility should be considered adequately when we make or enforce the laws. Imposing strict liability crimes in Anglo-American criminal law is a main expression of utilitarianism and also a choice between utility and justice. Objectivism holds that the basis of criminal responsibility is the behaviors and the harm of the behaviors. The behaviors and the harm of the behaviors are significant and essential to objectivism. The theory of community responsibility considers that the essence of penalty is not to punish a criminal but to protect the public. The criminal responsibilities are just measures to ensure the safety of the public. The law, the society and the people all require the members in the society to consider adequately of the public and the others. The fourth chapter rebuts the arguments against strict liability...