Be sure to share your comments in the Class Participation section below -- that's often the best part! The comments are never closed; you're always welcome to add to the discussion. Also, if you get tired of clicking on the buttons, you can always use the arrows on your keyboard ← → to move around.

Buy the books on Amazon ___ ___
Join the conversation! There are now 5 comments on “Strict Liability pg 54
  1. Robert Montrose says

    Though there had been lesser explosions under TR, FDR, and Nixon.

  2. Zip says

    Are you trying to say that we should get rid of drunk driving laws? Because if laws are meant to protect people, driving drunk would certainly fall under that. People DIE because of it.

    Also, as for statutory rape: every girl starts puberty at a different time. And when you even officially start puberty is up for debate. Is it when you get your period? When you grow pubes? Armpit hair? Acne? A general age of adulthood applies to everyone equally.

      • But you’re suggesting that strict liability might be inappropriate there? Allowing mens rea checks for drunk driving sounds like it could be disastrous. “I thought I was sober enough. . .”

        • I think the drunk driving example is a bad one, because virtually no one who drinks and drives actually lacks mens rea. The only way I can think of that something would qualify is if a driver literally forgot (or never knew) that he’d had alcohol recently before getting behind the wheel, which is not an argument that judges or juries would be likely to credit in most cases. Whether or not you know the limit itself doesn’t matter; all that matters is that you intended to drink the requisite amount of alcohol, and intended to drive afterwards.

Class Participation

___