A regulatory or public welfare crime ensures protection of the public from the risk of the normative interests of the modern state (Roach, 213). A regulatory offense occurs when an individual or company has performed a certain action without taking proper precautions, including obtaining a license (Roach, 213). The Crown will convict a regulatory offense because it goes against the rules established by the state which creates the danger of harm (Roach, 213). There are different types of regulatory crimes that can be divided into three forms of law violation categories: absolute liability, strict liability and true crimes. In order to gain a solid understanding of how strict liability strikes a balance between normative crimes and the criminal law principle of moral culpability, it is necessary to thoroughly establish the differences between strict liability and other normative crimes. Strict and absolute liability involves the Crown proving that a regulatory offense occurred beyond a reasonable doubt without establishing the element of fault. True crimes, on the other hand, guarantee that mens rea is established to convict the accused. The main goal of strict liability is to establish that the individual's actions were negligent and that they failed to practice due diligence. Due diligence refers to a person's ability to undertake "an active and reasonable attempt to prevent the commission of the prohibited act (Roach, 221)." It is through these differences that strict liability allows defendants to demonstrate that they exercised reasonable judgment and attempted to abate negligence. Strict liability manages to find a good balance between the political logic of regulatory crimes and the crime... paper... his” company free from any blame. Individuals who hire employees are more susceptible to fault through the common law principle of vicarious liability; “Vicarious liability occurs when the acts and blame of another person are attributed to the defendant for the purpose of determining liability” (Roach, 229). While the employee may be guilty of the crime, if the crime was committed while under the supervision of the employer, both the employee and the employer are liable for whatever harm was caused. This difference in how business is conducted makes independent business owners more vulnerable to strict liability for negligent conduct conducted by an employee than a company that has subcontracted the work to smaller companies. By conducting business in this manner, corporations are more likely to enjoy the protections afforded by strict liability than individuals.