|
I have not researched the statute. It is possible that it may have been overturned or there may be some contradictory case law. Regarding the mens rea requirement in strict liability offenses. Wikipedia has a pretty decent explanation --
"In criminal law, strict liability is liability for which mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") does not have to be proven in relation to one or more elements comprising the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") although intention, recklessness or knowledge may be required in relation to other elements of the offense. 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. The defendants may therefore not be culpable in any real way, i.e. there is not even criminal negligence, the least blameworthy level of mens rea.
* * *
As the federal constitution entrenches a right of due process, the United States usually applies strict liability to only the most minor crimes or infractions. One example would be parking violations, where the state only needs to show that the defendant's vehicle was parked inappropriately at a certain curb. But serious crimes like rape and murder require some showing of culpability or mens rea. Otherwise, every accidental death, even during medical treatment in good faith, could become grounds for a murder prosecution and a prison sentence.
A serious offense in which strict liability tends to show up is in drunk driving laws; the punishment tends to be given on a strict liability basis, with no mens rea requirement at all. * * *
In many states, statutory rape is considered a strict liability offense. In these states, 22 as of 2007, it is possible to face felony charges despite not knowing the age of the other person, or even if the minor presented identification showing an age of eighteen or higher. The American Law Institute's Model Penal Code generally restricts strict liability to minor offenses ("violations")." [End of Wikipedia quote.]
Strict liability offenses are generally regulatory offenses that are part of a regulatory scheme. (This one is in the Texas Education Code.) They also involve a relatively low penalty and are not regarded by the community as involving significant moral impropriety. (This on no jail time and a relatively low fine.)
I am no criminal law expert, but my guess is that it is likely that proof of the mental state of those participating in the hazing activity will be required; but knowledge of or participation in the hazing by higher management is not required for conviction.
[Same disclaimer as above posts.]
|
