Strict Liability...

...is when an actus reus alone is grounds for conviction (no criminal intent needed). In this post we’ll determine when strict liability is appropriate.

Morrissette v. United States (1952)

Facts
Mr. Morrissette took old bomb casings from what turned out to be a military site. He believed they were abandoned, and used them to make metal products. Morrissette was sued in federal court for conversion. The statute in question stated “knowingly convert government property.”

Question
Is strict liability appropriate?

Holding
No

Reasoning
Strict liability is only appropriate for public welfare offenses. This offense does not qualify, and therefore a mens rea (knowingly) is required.

And the winner is…
Morrissette

What makes an action a “public welfare offense”?
This is determined by a combination of 5 issues.

1. Old School vs. New School
Simple, classic crimes like murder and theft require a criminal intent. New school crimes are more likely to fall under strict liability.
2. Severity of Punishment
Strict liability is more often applied to crimes that result in modest fines and penalties. If the penalty is harsh, criminal intent is more necessary.
3. Reputation
If a conviction will seriously damage an individual's reputation, a criminal intent is more likely required.
4. Omission
Strict liability is more allowable in crimes of omission. Crimes of commission require criminal intent.
5. Public Protection
Crimes that serious threaten public welfare can result in strict liability.

It's easy to see why strict liability did not apply to Morrisette. Theft is a classic crime, as well as an act of commission. He did not threaten public welfare. A conviction would have resulted in him being labeled a thief. I don't know what penalties were in play, but lets assume they were quite harsh.

summarized from Life of a Law Student

Man, five posts in one day! I love PTO.