[einhverfr]

> Prosecutors may not need to prove motive or intent, for example.

This is true but even for strict liability crimes there may be vagueness problems unless you can show some degree of at least a very general intent.

For example consider rape. You can't imprison someone because of a totally reasonable misunderstanding of this sort, so typically you are going to have to construct consent from the view of the accused. This leads to all sorts of things like (in many/most/all? states) the nature of the relationship is relevant. If you wake a woman up with sex and she's your wife and you normally share a bed, no prosecutor anywhere is going to consider that rape, but if you move into the bed of a friend-of-a-friend you let sleep in your guest room and wake her up with sex, that will be.

These things get really complicated. My reading of the cases in the US which have ordered compelled encryption have held that there was already full testimony that the documents existed and were of a certain nature, and were decryptable by the defendant that it was solely a matter of demonstrating what was already testified to.

[stcredzero]

This is true but even for strict liability crimes there may be vagueness problems unless you can show some degree of at least a very general intent.

The problem here is that the prosecutors hold a lot of sway over how much Presumption of Innocence should be relaxed in each case, as they are the ones who advise the governments of local jurisdictions about these matters. That would be like the umpires always being on the payroll of the home team. I'm not so sure this situation is conducive to a level playing field.