Final answer:
Penalties for strict liability crimes are usually less severe than those for 'true' crimes, as strict liability requires no proof of intent. True crimes involve more serious offenses such as theft or destruction with force, which carry harsher punishments.
Step-by-step explanation:
The penalties for strict liability crimes are generally less severe than those for "true" crimes, which involve mens rea or criminal intent. Strict liability crimes do not require proof of intent; rather, the perpetrator is guilty simply for committing the act, regardless of intent. An example of a strict liability crime might be a statutory violation such as selling alcohol to a minor, where the seller is held responsible even if they believed the purchaser was of legal age. In contrast, true crimes typically involve more serious offenses, such as those involving the destruction or theft of property with the use of force or threat, and are therefore met with harsher punishments because they are considered more severe and intentional in nature.