In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his/her acts and omissions regardless of culpability (including fault in criminal law terms, typically the presence of mens rea). Under strict liability, there is no requirement to prove fault, negligence or intention. Strict liability is prominent in tort law (especially product liability), corporations law, and criminal law. For analysis of the pros and cons of strict liability as applied to product liability, the most important strict liability regime, see product liability.
. . . .
A classic example of strict liability is the owner of a tiger rehabilitation center. No matter how strong the tiger cages are, if an animal escapes and causes damage and injury, the owner is held liable. Another example is a contractor hiring a demolition subcontractor that lacks proper insurance. If the subcontractor makes a mistake, the contractor is strictly liable for any damage that occurs. A more everyday example is that of a passenger on public transport who was unable to purchase a valid ticket for the journey due to extraneous circumstances, such as being unable to purchase a ticket for whatever reason. Under strict liability it does not matter if the ticket machine was broken, or the train was early, or there were no staff at the counter. The legal responsibility for holding a valid ticket falls on the passenger and the passenger should not have travelled without one regardless of the circumstances.
In strict liability situations, although the plaintiff does not have to prove fault, the defendant can raise a defense of absence of fault, especially in cases of product liability, where the defense may argue that the defect was the result of the plaintiff's actions and not of the product, that is, no inference of defect should be drawn solely because an accident occurs.[2] If the plaintiff can prove that the defendant knew about the defect before the damages occurred, additional punitive damages can be awarded to the victim in some jurisdictions.
. . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability
In my view, the only way we can end the epidemic of gun violence is to work on our culture.
Californians are not allowed to smoke in certain buildings including many offices. We have had a good anti-smoking campaign, and we see many fewer smokers now. Yes. Some laws were passed. But more important, we created a culture in which smoking is discouraged in a lot of situations. That has worked much better than passing and enforcing laws.
Background checks would be enforceable, but just how they would prevent very determined people who might live in a household with a gun from getting that gun and committing serious crimes, I do not know.
I do not oppose this legislation, and it might help some, but I am very skeptical about the efficacy of legislation when we need to make basic changes to our culture.
All our superheroes use guns or other weapons. And by the age of three or four, our children have toyboxes containing little dolls of those superheroes. If we refuse to buy them toy guns, they use their fingers and fists and pretend to have weapons.
The love of guns is very deep in our society. We need to stop watching the movies and TV shows that feature so much violence. Face it. Many, many Americans love that kind of thing. The police chases, etc.
And if you are going to have that kind of violence, then you have to imagine some terrible enemy, some horrible thing or inhuman person to hate, to justify the violence and the imagined attacks on something, someone. So the "criminal" (and we do have real ones), the villains, they play an important role in the culture of violence. They are the targets. Is it any wonder that our prisons are full (in real life) and so many people, vulnerable people, angry people, commit terrible crimes with guns. Our entire culture is centered on pointing fingers at those "bad" people over there. Racism, sexism, anti-immigration, anti-Muslim, anti-Jewish, anti-this, anti-that. All the result of the need of someone to hate in order to justify the violence.
Obama's measures are great, but they don't change our very violent culture. Unfortunately.
We have to do that. Obama cannot.
= new reply since forum marked as read
