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 7 comments on “Strict Liability pg 57
  1. Tim says

    How many times do we hear the phrase, “Well, we have to do *something*,” implying that something wrong now is better than something right later.

  2. Computant says

    Remember the woman who answered the cell phone for her boyfriend and took messages for him, who got a 15 year, no parole sentence for drug dealing because the guys who were calling her boyfriend were arranging deals. The boyfriend turned states evidence and got 3-5 I think, but since she didn’t even know she was helping with drug deals, she knew nothing, and couldn’t provide any evidence…

    • You’re saying they were speaking in code, she didn’t know the code, and was writing down what they said, word for word? There is no way she can be liable for anything, other than bad taste in boyfriends.

      • Isn’t that what strict liability means? It doesn’t matter if she knew anything or not. She was an intermediary in deals.

  3. Note that, for all the fuss about releasing non-violent drug offenders, most of the people incarcerated in the US are there for violent offenses that have existed in some form since feudal England. The problem is that the sentences are absurdly disproportionate to the harm done.

Class Participation

___