Strict liability of parking laws

[thewestwinds]

Bridgeview, Illinois.

My question is pretty simple, but I can’t seem to find it documented anywhere.

How do I know if a parking law (or any law) is subject to strict liability? I looked up the specific ordinance in the town and it has no mention of the specific law being subject to strict liability. Could they have another law on the books that puts all parking ordinances in a category that is subject to strict liability? Could a law of a higher body (like the county or state) have a law that puts all parking violations, or any logical group of violations, even those of a lower body (like the town or municipality) into a category that is subject to strict liability? Does it even have to be stated in the legal code?

Thanks in advance.
JimWhat is the name of your state?

 

[seniorjudge]

Bridgeview, Illinois.

My question is pretty simple, but I can’t seem to find it documented anywhere.

How do I know if a parking law (or any law) is subject to strict liability? I looked up the specific ordinance in the town and it has no mention of the specific law being subject to strict liability. Could they have another law on the books that puts all parking ordinances in a category that is subject to strict liability? Could a law of a higher body (like the county or state) have a law that puts all parking violations, or any logical group of violations, even those of a lower body (like the town or municipality) into a category that is subject to strict liability? Does it even have to be stated in the legal code?

Thanks in advance.
JimWhat is the name of your state?

It is strict liability because you will notice when you read the law that no mental state is required for committing the offense.

It's like paying taxes: your taxes are either paid or they are not paid. If they are not paid, then it doesn't matter if you just forgot or whether you intended to not pay or if you were in a coma.

If they are not paid they are not paid and you are guilty.

This is a very simple concept.

 

[thewestwinds]

OK. I was under the impression that to violate any law there had to be mens rea; and if a law did not require mens rea, then the law needed to specify it. You are saying that I actually have it reversed and that unless a law specifically stipulates that mens rea is required, it is not. Correct?

And for the record, I think there are very few very simple concepts when it comes to law

 

[seniorjudge]

OK. I was under the impression that to violate any law there had to be mens rea; and if a law did not require mens rea, then the law needed to specify it. You are saying that I actually have it reversed and that unless a law specifically stipulates that mens rea is required, it is not. Correct?

And for the record, I think there are very few very simple concepts when it comes to law

I really can't give you a course in statutory interpretation; try Google...it is your friend.


I was under the impression that to violate any law there had to be mens rea; and if a law did not require mens rea, then the law needed to specify it.

Wrong on both counts.



You are saying that I actually have it reversed and that unless a law specifically stipulates that mens rea is required, it is not. Correct?

I didn't say anything even faintly resembling that.

 

[thewestwinds]

I apologize if I am frustrating you. I am just attempting to get at some answers. I have tried googling a lot of this stuff, and am not getting very many straightforward answers. Maybe my problem is that I'm looking for straightforward answers!

Either way...

You are saying that I actually have it reversed and that unless a law specifically stipulates that mens rea is required, it is not. Correct?

I didn't say anything even faintly resembling that.

Well, you said that the law is held to strict liability because nowhere in the law it stipulates that a mental state is required. So I am assuming, and maybe incorrectly, that as long as mental state is not stipulated in the law, then no mental state is required. Therefore, it is strict liability.

Is this the case? Can I assume, as long as no mental state is stipulated in the law then strict liability applies?

 

[patstew]

How do I know if a parking law (or any law) is subject to strict liability? I looked up the specific ordinance in the town and it has no mention of the specific law being subject to strict liability. Could they have another law on the books that puts all parking ordinances in a category that is subject to strict liability? Could a law of a higher body (like the county or state) have a law that puts all parking violations, or any logical group of violations, even those of a lower body (like the town or municipality) into a category that is subject to strict liability? Does it even have to be stated in the legal code?

You need to stop ending your sentences with the phrase "strict liability" and just pay the damn ticket.

 

[seniorjudge]

...

Is this the case? Can I assume, as long as no mental state is stipulated in the law then strict liability applies?

....

Yes and yes.