Can a person be found guilty of a crime without proving mens rea?

The correct answer is that a person can indeed be found guilty of a crime without the necessity of proving mens rea in the context of strict liability offenses. In strict liability cases, the prosecution does not need to prove that the defendant had the intent or knowledge typically associated with a crime. Instead, simply committing the act itself—regardless of intent or mental state—is sufficient for a conviction.

Strict liability offenses often pertain to regulatory or public welfare laws, such as certain traffic violations or environmental regulations, where the legal system places a high value on enforcing the law for the protection of the public. In these instances, the law holds individuals accountable for their actions regardless of their intent behind those actions, reflecting a societal interest in deterrence and compliance rather than the pursuit of individual culpability.

This stands in contrast to other legal principles where mens rea, the mental state or intent behind a criminal act, is a cornerstone of establishing culpability. Consequently, the other responses do not accurately capture the nuance provided by strict liability offenses.