What Is The Logic Behind Strict Liability Laws?

My law dictionary says strict liability laws are laws that don't include intent. It also goes on to say that they are typically minor civil infractions, but that they also include more serious drug offenses. It doesn't really say why, though.

But I say Why? It seems to me, even for minor civil infractions, they would always be inherently unfair.

What then is the legal logic behind them to begin with?

:daisy: :bobby: :daisy:

 

i don't really know, but i would assume that it's so the victim can be legally compensated for whatever happened to them. like, if i accidentally break your tv, i still am responsible for it, because that's more fair than saying it's just your problem.

but that's just a guess based on the very limited information in your post.

 

the only strict liability rule that affects me is for contempt of court. I think the exact wording is something like

"a person may found guilty of contempt under the strict liability rule regardless of intent if they publish material which has the potential to cause a substantial risk of serious prejudice or impediment to proceedings and proceedings are active."

In this instance its basically a way of getting everyone to just be INCREDIBLY CAREFUL. you can basically be prosecuted if you publish anything, even without being intending to damage a case. its important because if you prejudice a case while its active then that case gets shut down, a criminal might just walk free (its happened in the past). And its fair because everyone is well aware of it in the industry. Its basically a way of getting everyone to be on their toes.

I don't know any other examples, but if they're mainly used for civil infractions then i'd assume its to make sure that people receive adequate compensation.

 

the logic is called responsibility. law gets involved, when people, especially economically motivated business interests, lack the moral character, to behave responsibly.

 

Can you cite one example of what you feel would be inherently unfair? Put simply, damages caused accidently do not absolve one from compensatory responsibility.

 

I sure can. It happened in Michigan once (where I live), several decade ago or so I believe. There was this Michigan law that said if you were caught with a certain amount of heroine (or cocaine, I don't recall which--but you get the picture) it meant an automatic life sentence. No exceptions. Well, there was this poor African American woman. And unbeknownst to her, her boyfriend was dealing drugs. And one day, as fate would have it, she was driving his car. You can guess what happened next. When the police pulled her over, BUSTED!

Now, nobody disputes she didn't know the stuff was in the trunk (as it turned out). And nobody cared. (Update: The law was eventually amended, and she was paroled. But still, this was unfair, don't you think?)

I know some people would say she should have chosen a better crowd. But she has always maintained she didn't know her boyfriend was into drugs. And it apparently doesn't matter anyways.

Also, I think you can sometimes get in trouble if a car driven by someone else is pulled over, and they at least have contraband on them. WHAT IS THE POINT OF THESE INJUST LAWS???

Anyways, you wanted an example, and I think that qualifies as one

 

Your example reads "There WAS this Michigan law...", and further you confirm that "The law was eventually amended". A good example would/should be a law that is currently on the books and being applied. Let's deal with the present NOT the past.