What is a strict liability crime? 

David Stewart Thanks, David. I hope your studies go well. uslawessentials.com/forum

+Marybel Landry Thanks Marybel.

Thanks very much. More here: uslawessentials.com.

By now you have probably completed your stream. How was the experience?

Thanks for stopping by. uslawessentials.com

+Ярік Львів Thanks!

Thanks Kristina. Let me know if other topics interest you. uslawessentials.com/blog

@@USLawEssentials hi I m a law student can u make video about latest case of cyber crime

You're going to pass but not because of me - - but thanks for your kind comment.

Hi Augustín, the rule is generally the same in the United States. A person is guilty of a crime even if he is unaware of the law. However, an intention to commit the prohibited act is often an element of the crime, even if the person is unaware that the act is illegal. Strict liability crimes do not require the prosecutor to prove that the person committing the crime had an intention to commit the act.

Oh, now I get it, thank you for the explanation!

Hi Samuel. In a criminal case the burden of proof is on the government. The government must prove each aspect of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is not enough evidence, you are correct, the jury should find that the defendant is not guilty. So let's say we have a law that says "It is unlawful to write a check, knowing that there are insufficient funds in one's bank account." Let's say David writes a check for $500 but he has only $400 in his account. Here, the government would have to prove that the defendant wrote the check, and also prove that David knew that he had less than $500 in his account. This is not a strict liability crime because the government must prove that it was done knowingly. There might be a variety of ways to prove that David must have known he had less than $500 in his account, but your basic point is correct - - if the government can't prove it then David should be found not guilty. Hope that helps.

Yup That's the intent. The purpose of strict criminal liability is to throw you in jail even if you are innocent.

This was a very interesting video, it was helpful in the formulation of my post for class. Thanks, I have taken good notes from it.

My name is Sandra Staten, Gardner was my maiden name,. I am a student @ U of P, Criminal Justice major. Again, thanks for the great video.

It is never fair. Strict liability is only useful for throwing innocent people in jail.

Nope. It has nothing to do with knowledge of the law. Strict liability means you are considered guilty even if you didn't know you were committing the ACT. Like if someone threw drugs in your car and you drive the car, then you still go to jail for possession even though you would have no idea the drugs were there to begin with and even if it is proven without a doubt that someone else put the drugs there. Guilty even if innocent.

Mohamood, thanks for viewing. You are correct that there are strict liability torts. But there are also strict liability crimes. Drunk driving & statutory rape are examples of strict liability crimes.

Thank you for the video, very helpful. I'm studying criminal law and this helps clear up strict liability crime

Not exactly. By way of example, the prosecutor would have to prove the defendant drove drunk. But would not have to prove that the defendant intended to drive drunk.

You would have to read the statute. For example, if the law states that a person must know the firearm is illegal, then it is not a strict liability statute. If the law simply says a person is guilty if he carries the illegal firearm then it's likely a strict liability statute.

Federal, yes. In most states, yes. But if it isn't strict liability as per the letter of the law, they will change it to be strict liability through Chevron Deference. As a result of Chevron Deference, law enforcement agencies get to unconstitutionally make up their own laws and enforce it in court. Look what they did to Matt Hoover and Kristopher J Ervin.