The JHS Company makes industrial solvents and other chemicals at a large factory near a federally protected marshland. The JHS Company has invested heavily in new equipment to prevent chemical spills and pollution. Everything in the factory is modern and state-of-the-art and all JHS executives are fully committed to environmental safety. One day a state-of-the-art intake valve fails and several thousand gallons of industrial waste are released from the plant into the marshland. The Environmental Protection Agency cites the executive at JHS for damages to the marshland and asses the company a $10,000,000 fine. The JHS Company and its manager protest that this is unfair because they did not intend for the pollution to happen and have taken every step possible to prevent spills. Are they right and why or why not? They are Right - There was no intent to spill and therefore no culpable mental state. They are Wrong - This is a strict liability crime and no mens rea is required for guilt. They are Right - The EPA must at least show that the company and its employees were at least "negligent" in operating its plant. They are Wrong - The EPA is merely a "regulatory agency" and they cannot enforce this fine