<i>An example of a law written with the (gender neutral) victim&#x27;s interest in mind is that of statutory rape - you can contain all the consent you like but if the person is not viewed as being able to give it then an offence is committed.</i><p>Almost.  If they were not able to consent (due to age, inebriation, mental illness, etc.) then there was no consent.  But if you had a well-founded belief in their ability to consent, then you are not culpable.<p>In Canada it has been held to be unconstitutional for a criminal offence &quot;where it is not open to the accused to exculpate himself by showing that he was free of fault&quot; to have incarceration as a possible punishment; such absolute liability is valid for such things as parking tickets, however.  Offences such as statutory rape are instead &quot;strict liability&quot; offences: The prosecution is not required to show intent, but an accused can raise the defence of due diligence.<p>The situation is a bit murkier in the USA, but courts have accepted (see e.g., Kantor) a &quot;good faith&quot; defence even where the legislature has explicitly rejected the mens rea requirement.