Final answer:
Strict liability in criminal law excludes the requirement of mens rea or the mental state of intent. Instead, proving that the defendant engaged in the prohibited action is sufficient for conviction, with very limited options for defense.
Step-by-step explanation:
The concept of strict liability in criminal law excludes the legal element of mens rea, which is the mental state of knowledge of wrongdoing. Strict liability offences do not require proof of the defendant's intent or knowledge that they were committing a crime. Instead, the prosecution only needs to prove that the defendant engaged in the prohibited action. This is in contrast to other criminal offenses where establishing the defendant's mental state is crucial to proving guilt.
For example, traffic violations or selling alcohol to minors are often strict liability offenses where the perpetrator's knowledge or intent is not required to be proven for a conviction. A defense against a strict liability offense is limited; the defendant cannot argue that they were unaware that their actions were illegal or that they acted without criminal intent.