Morten was the general manager and chief executive officer of the Woolen Company, a knitting mill. Morten delegated all operational decision making to Grouse, the supervising manager of the mill. The child labor laws in the jurisdiction provide, "It is a violation of the law for one to employ a person under the age of 17 years for full-time labor." Without Morten's knowledge, Grouse hired a number of 15- and 16- year-olds to work at the mill full time. He did not ask their ages and they did not disclose them. Grouse could have discovered their ages easily by asking for identification, but he did not do so because he was not aware of the law and believed that company policy was to hire young people.If the statute is interpreted to create strict liability and Morten is convicted of violating it, his contention that his conviction would violate the federal Constitution is
correct, because it is a violation of due process to punish without a voluntary act.  correct, because criminal liability is personal and the Woolen Company is the employer of the children, not Morten.  incorrect, because regulatory offenses are not subject to due process limitations.  incorrect, because he was in a position to exercise control over the hiring of employees for the Woolen Company
Question: Morten was the general manager and chief executive officer of the Woolen Company, a knitting mill. Morten delegated all operational decision making to Grouse, the supervising manager of the mill. The child labor laws in the jurisdiction provide, "It is a violation of the law for one to employ a person under the age of 17 years for full-time labor." Without Morten's knowledge, Grouse hired a number of 15- and 16- year-olds to work at the mill full time. He did not ask their ages and they did not disclose them. Grouse could have discovered their ages easily by asking for identification, but he did not do so because he was not aware of the law and believed that company policy was to hire young people.If the statute is interpreted to create strict liability and Morten is convicted of violating it, his contention that his conviction would violate the federal Constitution is
A. correct, because it is a violation of due process to punish without a voluntary act. 
B. correct, because criminal liability is personal and the Woolen Company is the employer of the children, not Morten. 
C. incorrect, because regulatory offenses are not subject to due process limitations. 
D. incorrect, because he was in a position to exercise control over the hiring of employees for the Woolen Company
Answer: