which one of the following is a strict-liability crime?

Question

SHOPLIFTING RUNNING A RED LIGHT ROBBERY BURGLARY

Answer 1

The liability is said to be strict because defendants will be convicted even though they were genuinely ignorant of one or more factors that made their acts or omissions criminal

none of them. We all know doing any of them is not legal to begin with. Shoplifting, robbery, and burglary are taught to us while growing into adulthood as being wrong. Running a red light is taught as we learn to drive as being wrong! So the concept of I should not do this is there.

Here's the better example (not knowledgable of the forgery): pharmacist supplied drugs to a patient who presented a forged doctor's prescription.

Answer 2

Running is red light is a strict liability rule because it is against public safety.

Answer 3

Running a red light.

Answer 4

"gross negligence" potential that the government has to teach "gross negligence." which potential you knew or could desire to have regularly occurring of a severe danger that demise or severe actual harm could desire to befell by potential of your strikes, and that demise (i.e. manslaughter) did take place because of the fact of your strikes. The gv't does not could desire to teach which you "indended" to kill the guy, only that a existence like person could have regularly occurring that the strikes could desire to probably bring about demise. In some jurisdictions, there are "consistent with se" regulations -- which potential using at a definite point of intoxication could be considered by potential of the jury as being "consistent with se" reckless or grossly negligent. So there is an ingredient of strict legal duty there, although that is not technically a strict legal duty crime (like, say, rushing).

Answer 5

Running a red light.

Generally traffic violations are almost all strict liability.

The others require intent.