The serious criticism expressed by many scholars of criminal law against strict responsibility offences (sometimes called Public Welfare Offences), has not brought about their abolition. The courts of this country, as of most common law countries, continue to interpret certain offences as imposing responsibility without fault and the legislator on his part has not interfered.
While the debate on the very existence of strict liability offences continues, very little attention has been paid to another not insignificant problem, the principles and considerations on which the courts should determine the severity of sentence to be imposed on conviction for such offences. It is, of course, impossible to deal with this latter aspect in isolation from the rationale given by the proponents of strict responsibility in favour of its retention. It follows, then, that any analysis of sentencing in strict liability offences is to a great extent also a renewed probing from another angle into the basic problems involved in the imposition of liability without fault in criminal law.