Advantages And Disadvantages Of Strict Liability

1367 Words 6 Pages
Offences of strict liability is an act of crime which does not require intention, recklessness or even negligence to one or more elements in the actus reus. In Malaysia, strict liability can be defined as a legal responsibility for damages or injury even if the person is found strictly liable without his fault or negligence. Under Common Law, there are an aversion to impose strict liability most likely because of the absence of mens rea in these offences. A person is not considered guilty of a crime if the act of crime is done without guilty mind. It is called strict liability because the defendant will be convicted even they are completely have no any knowledge of elements of the criminal offence they committed. In other words, strict liability …show more content…
The general exceptions under Chapter IV of the Penal Code which will be pronounced as PC which are by mistake of fact or by accident are applicable as defences for every criminal offences. However, in cases of strict liability, there must be a distinction between defences which are used as an excuse and defences which are used as a justification. Excuses are defences which are used by the accused person who committed the offence of strict liability because of being pressured or having disabilities such as insanity or intoxication. On the other hand, defences for justification are mostly self-defence or for the reason of necessity due to the existence of right of the accused person. The accused who raised self-defence might be excused or released because of the rights. However, the application of defences on strict liability offences would bring some effects where it would acquit the accused person. This means that even the conviction to the offence of strict liability does not require the presence of mens rea, the accused person can always escape from the liability when such defences are being …show more content…
Islamic law requires the presence of mens rea as well as the actus reus of the accused person in order to be convicted. The accused person cannot be convicted under strict liability if there is an absence of state of mind of the accused. This is because according to Islamic law, the doctrine of strict liability ignores the mental element of the accused person to an offence. A Judge is not allowed to decide that a person is guilty before hearing or proving the intention of the commission of strict liability offence by the accused person. Strict liability is contrary to the principles of fundamental liberties under the Islamic law where every individual have the right to protect his dignity from unfairness whether the act was done within or without his intention, induced to commit such act or was ignorant of the effect of the act. Allah SWT commanded: “And pursue not that of which thou has no knowledge; for every act or hearings, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into the day of judgement.” Therefore, if a person committed an offence where the absence of mental element of the accused cannot be proven, it is considered non-offence by the Islamic law. To convict the accused as guilty without proving the mental state would be unjustifiable under the law. This is commanded by Allah SWT to ensure

Related Documents