Is there a case where strict liability laws are a better option? It seems like a bad thing to me that leads to less just outcomes. Case in point, whistleblowe

Is there a case where strict liability laws are a better option? It seems like a bad thing to me that leads to less just outcomes. Case in point, whistleblowers are tried under the espionage act using strict liability. It doesn't matter why they did it, if it was harmful or beneficial, only that they did it or not.