Posted: September 13th, 2017

strict liability offenses

strict liability offenses

DQ 1:
In Chapter 2, the category of strict liability offenses was mentioned briefly. In these offenses, intent is irrelevant and a person can be arrested and prosecuted for an act despite the absence of intent. An example in the text is statutory rape in which a perpetrator can be held liable for having sexual intercourse with someone under statutory age (usually 16) although the perpetrator thought the “victim” was older. In effect, the perpetrator did not have the “intent” to have sexual intercourse with someone under the age of 16 (thinking s/he was older) but did so anyway. Your question is:
What do you think of this type of strict liability crime? Do you feel intent should always be present? Or, do you feel that for some offenses, intent can be absent? (NOTE: don’t focus so much on the textbook’s specific example of rape but of “strict liability” and its relationship to intent).
DQ 2:
Due process was covered as one of the fundamental concepts in criminal justice. However, some have argued that due process results in the release of known criminals due to a “technicality.” Others argue that due process is necessary so that innocent persons are not imprisoned unfairly; hence, the statement, “it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to imprison an innocent man.” was coined. Your question is:
Do you agree with that statment? Or do you feel that imprisoning an innocent man on occasion is a small price to pay to convict the guilty?

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂