Which type of liability may include prison time and allows for a due diligence defense?

Strict liability is the correct choice because it encompasses crimes for which a defendant may be found guilty without the need for proof of mens rea, or intent. However, in strict liability offences, the defendant has the opportunity to present a due diligence defense. This means that if the defendant can demonstrate that they took all reasonable steps to prevent the offence from occurring, they may avoid liability, even if the act itself is inherently a violation of the law.

Strict liability offences can carry penalties, including imprisonment, though this varies based on the severity of the offence and the specific statutory provisions in place. The key distinction of strict liability is the allowance of the due diligence defense, which is not present in absolute liability offences, where liability is imposed without regard to the intention or knowledge of the accused, and no defense can be offered.

True crimes typically require proof of both a guilty act (actus reus) and a guilty mind (mens rea) to establish criminal liability. Regulatory offences often involve less severe penalties and may focus on compliance rather than moral blameworthiness, and they may or may not allow a due diligence defense depending on the specific legislative framework.