Narrow Strict Liability

In “The Nature and Significance of Culpability,” Brink introduces the concept of narrow strict liability. Narrow strict liability is a form of strict liability that does not require narrow culpability. Basically, people can be punished for wrongful conduct even without a mens rea requirement — the minimum being negligence.

Brink claims that “Narrow strict liability offenses are morally problematic,” because they are unfair (Brink, 370). It seems that people should only be held responsible for crimes that they are at least narrowly culpable for. How can someone be blameworthy if they were not purposeful in their wrongdoing, knowledgeable of the consequences, reckless in their actions, or at least negligent?

However, when Brink begins applying this definition of narrow strict liability to individual laws, some of his examples are unsuccessful. For example, the first example of narrow strict liability that Brink gives is a case of statutory rape. In a case of statutory rape, an adult engages in non-forcible sexual activity with a minor. In the case that Brink gives, the adult had good reasons to believe that the minor was not actually a minor. Perhaps the minor lied to the adult and claimed to be of age, and the minor actually looked like she was of age. Nonetheless, the adult is charged with statutory rape, a serious, blameworthy, criminal offense that comes with significant social stigma.

Brink sees this as a clear example of narrow strict liability, but I do not think this case is as clear as Brink believes it to be. Suppose it is New Year’s Day and a man was out drinking and partying late into the night. Instead of driving home drunk, the man spends the night at the house where the party was held. In the morning, after sleeping for seven hours, the man wakes up and drives home. He causes a terrible car crash by running a red light in which a little girl is killed. Even though the man had good reason to believe he was no longer drunk (he slept for seven hours!), he, in fact, was still legally drunk. Maybe he even gave himself a breathalyzer test that came back in the legal range. Was the man negligent and, thus, culpable for the crime of manslaughter? Very few people will claim that the man was not culpable.

This case seems to parallel the case provided of statutory rape. Just because the man had reason to believe that the girl was not a minor does not mean that he was not still negligent. While Brink seems to be right in thinking that cases of narrow strict culpability are unfair, his application of narrow strict culpability in this case falls flat.

Works Cited:

Brink, David. “The Nature and Significance of Culpability.” 2018.