Editing Strict liability (section)

==Criminal law==
{{main|Strict liability (criminal)}}

The concept of strict liability is also found in criminal law. Strict liability often applies to vehicular traffic offenses: in a speeding case, for example, whether the defendant knew that the posted speed limit was being exceeded is irrelevant; the prosecutor need only prove that the defendant was driving the vehicle in excess of the posted speed limit.

In the United States, strict liability can be determined by looking at the intent of the legislature. If the legislature seems to have purposefully left out a mental state element (''mens rea'') because they felt mental state need not be proven, it is treated as a strict liability. However, when a statute is silent as to the mental state (''mens rea'') and it is not clear that the legislature purposely left it out, the ordinary presumption is that a mental state is required for criminal liability. When no ''mens rea'' is specified, under the [[Model Penal Code]] (MPC), the default ''mens rea'' requirement is recklessness, which the MPC defines as "when a person consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk with respect to a material element".<ref>{{cite book|last=Lee|first=Cynthia|title=Criminal Law Cases and Materials|year=2009|publisher=WEST A Thomas Reuters Business|location=F. Strict Liability Crimes|isbn=9780314151285|pages=[https://archive.org/details/criminallawcases0000leec/page/219 219–221;989]|url=https://archive.org/details/criminallawcases0000leec/page/219}}</ref>

Strict liability laws can also prevent defendants from raising diminished mental capacity defenses, since intent does not need to be proven.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/garnett_v_state.htm |title=Garnett v. State |author=Joel Samaha (briefed by) |publisher=Department of Sociology at the University of Minnesota |date=June 9, 2001 |access-date=September 14, 2011}}</ref>

In the [[English law|English]] case of ''[[Sweet v Parsley]]'' (1970), it was held that where a statute creating a crime<ref>In this case, the crime was the statutory crime of "being concerned in the management of premises used for smoking cannabis".</ref> made no reference to intention, then ''[[mens rea]]'' would be imputed by the court, so that the crime would not be one of strict liability.