Q.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of strict liability?
A.
Advantages:
(1) The huge increase in the Standard of Products and the increased complexity of their component ingredients made it extremely difficult to prove that a manufacturer or merchant knew that the goods did conform to standards. If mens rea needed to be proven, the law would be a dead letter.
(2) Strict liability would promote increased care and efficiency. Knowledge of strict liability is a cost to be weighted when settling up a trade or business. It would encourage enterprises to appoint experts, for example, chemist or bacteriologists to ensure that their products are safe. It is preferable to place the burden on such enterprises which are in a position to prevent the harm than on the innocent public.
(3) No injustice is caused as strict liability offences are not "real crimes". They are only quasi-offences, or "regulatory violations", which expression renders an apt (likely or inclined) description of such offences. The penalties are usually light.
(4) It would simply be too time-consuming if blameworthiness had to be proven in every case, for example parking on a double-yellow line.
Disadvantages:
(1) It is unjust and morally indefensible to blame the blameless. A person who does not know that what he is doing is wrong or who has taken all reasonable precautions to avoid harm (i.e. Not negligent) does not deserve criminal conviction and punishment. No matter how trivial, a strict liability offence is still a crime which can result in prosecution and conviction in criminal courts.
(2) It is untrue that all offences of strict liability are minor offences carrying lesser penalties.
(3) There appears to be little evidence that the imposition of strict liability makes people more careful. Some persons involved in strict liability offences will simply regard any fines incurred (the typical penalty) as a license fee for operating as they do.
(4) Administrative convenience cannot be allowed to dictate the contours of the criminal law. No one would suggest making theft an offence of strict liability simply because of the vast number of prosecutions that are regularly brought and the difficulty of establishing mens rea.
(5) It is doubtful that the existence of strict liability saves much time and money in many cases as after conviction, there needs to be some enquiry as to blameworthiness in order to fix the appropriate sentence.
Ref:
Nuraisyah Chua Abdullah. 2004. Question & Answers on Malaysian Courts, Statutes, Cases & Contract, Tort and Criminal Law. 2013 Edition. Chapter 4. Page 151-152.