【正文】 be displaced only if this is clearly or by necessary implication the effect of the statute。正文：5000 字以上，五號(hào)字，宋體。⑵論文基本格式和排版基本要求：頁面要求： 一律A4紙排版，并加裝封面。封面一律用黑碳素筆書寫，或用A4復(fù)印紙雙面打印（禁止使用復(fù)印件），字跡要清晰。（二）份數(shù)論文至少應(yīng)印制貳份。較長的格式可轉(zhuǎn)行編排，在加、減、乘、除號(hào)或等號(hào)處換行，這些符號(hào)應(yīng)出現(xiàn)在行首。（四）表格正文中的表格一般包括表頭和表體兩部分，編排的基本要求為： 表頭：表頭包括表號(hào)、標(biāo)題和計(jì)量單位，用小5號(hào)黑體，在表體上方與表格線等寬度編排。正文用5號(hào)宋體，每段起首空兩格，回行頂格，單倍行距。忌用異體字、復(fù)合字及其他不規(guī)范的漢字。標(biāo)明作者、著作名或論文名、期刊名與刊號(hào)、報(bào)紙名與年月日、出版單位與出版時(shí)間。（五）目錄目錄一般應(yīng)列出論文正文的一、二級(jí)標(biāo)題、附錄、參考文獻(xiàn)、后記等，標(biāo)出對(duì)應(yīng)頁碼。（二）寫作者署名書寫寫作者姓名全稱，書寫在標(biāo)題下行，居中排列。為加強(qiáng)這一工作環(huán)節(jié)的管理，規(guī)范寫作，提高畢業(yè)論文質(zhì)量，特制定本標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。摘要除漢語稿外，一般還需要英語稿。正文的章節(jié)、層次應(yīng)以小標(biāo)題、序碼詞等予以標(biāo)識(shí)。頁面分圖文區(qū)與白邊區(qū)兩部分，所有的文字、圖形、其他符號(hào)只能出現(xiàn)在圖文區(qū)內(nèi)。再接下來一行寫摘要，“摘要”兩字用5號(hào)黑體，加方括號(hào)。每組標(biāo)題的下一級(jí)標(biāo)題應(yīng)各自連續(xù)編號(hào)。表中數(shù)碼文字一律使用小5號(hào)字。同一文中，數(shù)字的表示方法應(yīng)前后一致。能獨(dú)立查閱文獻(xiàn)資料及從事其他形式的調(diào)研，能較好地理解課題任務(wù)并提出實(shí)施方案，有分析整理各類信息并從中獲取新知識(shí)的能力。指導(dǎo)教師必須簽名。論文題目：限20字內(nèi)，小二號(hào)字，黑體。第三篇：本科畢業(yè)論文標(biāo)準(zhǔn)如你想要擁有完美無暇的友誼，可能一輩子找不到朋友。but that presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subjectmatter with which it deals and both must be considered(2)GRAVITY OF PUNISHMENT As a general rule the more serious the criminal offence created by statute the less likely the courts is to view it as an offence of strict : Sweet v Parsley [1970]： The defendant was a landlady of a house let to retained one room in the house for herself and visited occasionally to collect the rent and she was absent the police searched the house and found defendant was convicted under s5 of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 of “being concerned in the management of premises used for the smoking of cannabis”.She appealed alleging that she had no knowledge of the circumstances and indeed could not expect reasonably to have had such House of Lords quashing her conviction held that it had to be proved that the defendant had intended the house to be used for drugtaking since the statute in question created a serious or “truly criminal” offence conviction for which would have grave consequences for the Reid stated that “a stigma still attaches to any person convicted of a truly criminal offence and the more serious or more disgraceful the offence the greater the stigma”.And equally important “the press in this country are vigilant to expose injustice and every manifestly unjust conviction made known to the public tends to injure the body politic [people of a nation] by undermining public confidence in the justice of the law and of its administration.” Lord Reid went on to point out that in any event it was impractical to impose absolute liability for an offence of this nature as those who were responsible for letting properties could not possibly be expected to know everything that their tenants were doing.(3)WORDING OF THE STATUTE In determining whether the presumption in favor of mens rea is to be displaced the courts are required to have reference to the whole statute in which the offence : Cundy v Le Cocq(1884)：The defendant was convicted of unlawfully selling alcohol to an intoxicated person contrary to s13 of the Licensing Act appeal the defendant contended that he had been unaware of the customer39。ie that he had an honest and reasonable belief in a state of facts which would have made his act onus of proving reasonable mistake is on DEFENCES It is mon for the drastic effect of a statute imposing strict liability to be mitigated by the provision of a statutory is instructive to consider one offences relating to the treatment and sale of food are enacted by the first twenty sections of the Food Safety Act if not all of these are strict liability 21(1)however provides that it shall be a defense for the person charged with any of the offences to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the mission of the offence by himself or by a person under his defenses usually impose on the defendant a burden of proving that he had no mens rea and that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the mission of an effect of such provisions is that the prosecution need do no more than prove that the accused did the prohibited act and it is then for him to establish if he can that he did it provisions are a distinct advance on unmitigated strict ：英文文獻(xiàn)翻譯介紹嚴(yán)格責(zé)任犯罪是關(guān)于客觀方面的一個(gè)或多個(gè)因素不要求犯罪意圖的那些犯罪 被告不需故意或者知道這種情況或結(jié)果 考慮到這個(gè)因素責(zé)任被稱作是嚴(yán)格的 請看一個(gè)很好的例子：在1984年R v Prince之案：被告和一個(gè)未成年的女孩私奔 他被指控的罪名是將一個(gè)未滿16的女孩帶出她父母的監(jiān)控之外 違反了1861 年侵害人身法第55條 被告明知該女孩在其父親的監(jiān)護(hù)下但他有合理的理由相信該女孩已經(jīng)18歲了 有人認(rèn)為為了成立本罪明知該女孩未滿16歲不被要求證明被告故意將該女孩帶離出其父親的監(jiān)護(hù)之下就足夠了 僅在極端和少數(shù)的案例中 承擔(dān)責(zé)任不要求有犯罪意圖因此使這種特定的犯罪成為絕對(duì)的一般原則絕大多數(shù)嚴(yán)格責(zé)任犯罪都是法定犯罪 不過立法并沒有明確規(guī)定某一犯罪屬于嚴(yán)格責(zé)任犯罪 當(dāng)法規(guī)用故意地或魯莽地這樣的字眼時(shí) 就表明這一犯罪還是要求犯罪意圖的 或者法規(guī)可以明確地規(guī)定本罪是嚴(yán)格責(zé)任犯罪 在許多案子中都將會(huì)由法院來解釋法規(guī)和決定犯罪意圖是否被要求 當(dāng)判定一個(gè)犯罪是否屬于嚴(yán)格責(zé)任犯罪的種類時(shí) 法院將會(huì)考慮什么因素呢？ 現(xiàn)代標(biāo)準(zhǔn)在（香港）加蒙有限公司訴香港律政司一案中樞密院考慮了現(xiàn)代刑法中嚴(yán)格責(zé)任犯罪的范圍和作用以及它們在犯罪意圖推定上的效力 Scarman勛爵定下了一個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)法院應(yīng)該以此決定施加嚴(yán)格責(zé)任是否適合 在閣下的意見中法律可以在下列的提議中被陳述：（1）法律假定一個(gè)人被認(rèn)定有罪前要求其有犯罪意圖（2）該種犯罪在性質(zhì)上是“真正的犯罪”時(shí)特別要求這一推定（3）這一推定適用于成文法中的犯罪只有法規(guī)明確規(guī)定或必要的暗指時(shí)才可以不要這一推定（4）不要這一推定的唯一場合 是成文法關(guān)注社會(huì)關(guān)心的問題時(shí) 如公共安全問題（5）成文法即使關(guān)注這一問題 犯罪意圖的推定仍然存在除非嚴(yán)格責(zé)任的創(chuàng)制有力地推定成文法的目標(biāo) 即通過嚴(yán)厲的警告阻止實(shí)施被禁止的行為（1）推定要求犯罪意圖的存在法院通常一開始推定支持犯罪意圖的存在請看在Sherras v De Rutzen之案中Wright J的著名陳述：存在這樣的假定 即犯罪意圖或邪惡意圖或明知行為的不法要么是法規(guī)所創(chuàng)制的罪名的語言明確規(guī)定要么是它所處理的事情主旨要求這么做 并且兩者都必須被考慮（2）懲罰的嚴(yán)重性作為一個(gè)一般規(guī)則 被法規(guī)創(chuàng)制的犯罪越嚴(yán)重法院就越不可能將它看作一個(gè)嚴(yán)格責(zé)任犯罪 請看：1970年Sweet v Parsley之案：被告是一所出租房子的房東 她在那所房子里為自己保留了一個(gè)房間 警察搜查了房子并且發(fā)現(xiàn)了大麻被告在1965年《危險(xiǎn)藥品法》第5條之下 被宣告有罪因?yàn)榭紤]到在存在加以管理的前提下 她的房子被用于吸食大麻 她上訴聲稱她不知道那種情況而且實(shí)在不能夠合理的企盼她知道 上議院取消了她的有罪判決認(rèn)為控訴方必須證明被告故意將她的房子用于吸食毒品因?yàn)檎谟懻摰倪@一法規(guī)創(chuàng)制了一個(gè)嚴(yán)重或者說是一個(gè)真正的罪名 該罪名的有罪判決將會(huì)給被告帶來嚴(yán)重的后果Reid法官聲稱：恥辱將會(huì)附屬于任何一個(gè)觸犯了真正犯罪的人 這種犯罪越嚴(yán)重或越可恥 這種恥辱就越大并且同等重要的是：這個(gè)國家的記者警醒地披露著不公正 在任何情況下因?yàn)榉缸锏倪@種性質(zhì)施加絕對(duì)責(zé)任都是不切實(shí)際因?yàn)閷?duì)那些負(fù)責(zé)出租房屋的人來說是不可能指望他們知道他們的租戶所做的一切事情的（3）法規(guī)的明確規(guī)定在確定是否推定主張犯罪意圖的存在被取代時(shí) 法院被要求參考出現(xiàn)該罪名的整個(gè)法規(guī) 請看：1884年Cundy v Le Cocq之案：被告被判非法出售酒給喝醉酒的人 違反了1872年許可法第13條 在上訴中 被告主張他沒有意識(shí)到顧客是醉酒的狀態(tài)因此他應(yīng)該被免責(zé) 地區(qū)法院將第13條解釋為 它創(chuàng)制了嚴(yán)格責(zé)任罪名因?yàn)樗旧韺?duì)犯罪意圖是沉默的然而在該相同法令下的其他罪名都清楚地表明要求證明被告方面的明知法院認(rèn)為考慮被告是否明知或可能知道或基于普通的注意本能夠察覺他所服務(wù)的人是喝醉酒的是不必要的如果他把酒賣給一個(gè)事實(shí)上是喝醉酒的人 他就是有罪的Stephen J陳述道：在這里 正如我已經(jīng)指出的一樣該法令本部分的目標(biāo)是為了防止出售烈酒給醉酒者并且將確定他所給予的人是否屬于這一類人的責(zé)任賦予公眾這將是非常自然執(zhí)行