NCJ Number
61464
Journal
Wayne Law Review Volume: 24 Issue: 5 Dated: (SEPTEMBER 1978) Pages: 1571-1640
Date Published
1978
Length
70 pages
Annotation
THE REJECTION OF THE LEGAL DOCTRINE OF STRICT CRIMINAL LIABILITY IS ADVOCATED ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES PROOF OF CRIMINAL INTENT PRIOR TO ANY CRIMINAL CONVICTION.
Abstract
STRICT CRIMINAL LIABILITY REFERS TO LIABILITY FOR THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER THE DEFENDANT WAS CULPABLE OR HAD ANY INTENTION OF COMMITTING THE CRIMINAL ACT. FOR EXAMPLE, DEFENDANTS ACCUSED OF STATUTORY RAPE WOULD BE GUILTY REGARDLESS OF ANY SUBJECTIVE BELIEF AS TO THE MINORS' AGE. LIKEWISE, DEFENDANTS COULD BE CONVICTED OF SELLING ADULTERATED FOOD REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH CARE WAS EXERCISED IN PREPARATION, IF THE FOOD WAS ACTUALLY CONTAMINATED. ALTHOUGH AMERICAN COURTS AND LEGISLATURES SUPPORT STRICT CRIMINAL LIABILITY ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT PREVENTS GRAVE INJUSTICE, THE DOCTRINE OUGHT TO BE REJECTED. THE IMPOSITION OF LIABILITY ON PERSONS WHO LACKED CRIMINAL INTENT PLACES THEM IN THE SAME CATEGORY AS PERSONS WHO ACTED OUT OF DELIBERATION. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS UPHELD THE APPLICATION OF STRICT CRIMINAL LIAFBILITY, BUT THE COURT HAS NOT TOTALLY ABANDONED THE IDEA THAT CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT MAY NOT BE IMPOSED WITHOUT REGARD TO THE DEFENDANT'S CULPABILITY. THE COURT'S DECISIONS IN LAMBERT (1957) AND ROBINSON (1962) SUPPORT A CONSTITUTIONAL RULE AGAINST STRICT CRIMINAL LIABILITY BY IDENTIFYING SUBSTANTIVE LIMITS TO THE IMPOSING OF PUNISHMENT. THE PROPORTIONALITY DOCTRINE OF THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT CLEARLY PROHIBITS PUNISHMENTS DISPROPORTIONATE TO CRIMES, AND SHOULD PREVENT CRIMINAL LIABILITY WHERE THERE IS NO CULPABILITY. THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD EXTEND THE ARGUMENTS DEVELOPED IN SUPPORT OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS AND CONSTRUCT AN EXPANDED SYSTEM OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS. FOOTNOTES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK)