I was scanning Wikipedia's article on strict liability in the US and it has this quote:
However, in United States v. Kantor, which concerned underage pornographic actress Traci Lords, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals introduced a "good faith" defense against crimes in which the victim intentionally tricked the defendants into a factual mistake thinking that no crime was being committed. A "good faith" defense requires showing that the defendant affirmatively had reason to believe that they were not committing a crime, not simply a lack of knowledge that they were.
Could someone better elaborate on the distinction, what is the burden of proof for not having mens rea and what is the burden of proof for good faith, and how do the differ?
To give a specific example I know statutory rape laws are strict liability laws, The very same Wikipedia article on strict liability even says "it is possible to face felony charges despite not knowing the age of the other person, or even if the minor presented identification showing an age of eighteen or higher". However, if good faith arguments are allowed for strict liability laws then why would not someone looking over the age of consent and providing apparent proof of that fact not be sufficient for a good faith defense?