Why have strict-liability offenses been criticized by some legal scholars?

Strict-liability offenses, which impose liability without requiring proof of a culpable mental state or mens rea, have faced significant criticism from legal scholars primarily due to concerns regarding justice and moral culpability.12

Critics argue that exposing citizens to the stigma and consequences of a criminal conviction without demonstrating actual moral fault is fundamentally unjust. Because these offenses—often categorized as "public welfare offenses"—do not require the prosecution to establish intent or even negligence, they can penalize individuals who may lack any blameworthy state of mind.12

Many scholars contend that the objectives of such legislation, such as regulating public health, safety, or economic activities, could be achieved more effectively and ethically through civil sanctions—such as injunctions, license revocations, or suits for damages—rather than through the criminal justice system. By relying on criminal penalties for acts lacking moral culpability, the law risks undermining the principle that criminal punishment should be reserved for those who have committed an ethical as well as a legal wrong.13