Moderating strict liability crimes in common law tradition countries

Strict Liability crimes require no proof of a mental element. Proving the forbidden act suffices for conviction. This is discomforting under the common law tradition, since defendants who intended no wrong or were even unaware of their misdeed may be guilty. New Zealand, Australia, and Canada have responded by dividing non‐mens‐rea crimes into those where liability is absolute and those where, although conviction requires proof of no mental element, a defense negating mental guilt can be proven by accuseds. Canada has furthermore abolished the former category and severely restricted the latter. Australia and New Zealand maintain a tri‐part classification of mens rea, absolute liability, and strict liability. Some Indian jurisdictions have reached a similar result by different means. Meanwhile, even the few American courts exploring similar solutions remain unaware of the ninety years of jurisprudence developing these concepts elsewhere.