> Now, strict liability says, "Mens rea does not matter here, it is not a part of the definition of this crime." What you thought or intended is simply not a pa

> Now, strict liability says, "Mens rea does not matter here, it is not a part of the definition of this crime." What you thought or intended is simply not a part of what the court is there to consider. The court is only there to consider is the action was done by you, and if so, you are guilty. I don't think this is an entirely accurate characterization. Strict liability is more of an assertion that improper intent is a foregone conclusion, i.e. improper intent is a necessary condition for the statute violation to occur in the first place, because people are responsible for taking precaution not to violate the statute. > Edit: The handicap and small child, as far as I understand are not protected from being prosecuted in a strict liability charge in a court, but are simply less likely to make their way to a court. The distinction is actually relevant to this scenario. Young children and people with significant mental disability are incapable of committing crimes (even statutory crimes) by the principle of criminal responsibility. It is not the case that statute law applies as you have described, because were it so it would also apply in scenarios where the perpetrator has immunity on account of inability to have criminal responsibility.