No, that means what they thought or intended has absolutely no bearing on if they are guilty of having committed the crime.

The thought side of a crime, or the intent is mens rea, while the action of that crime is actus rea.

Normally in a crime both factor into the decision. For instance, should you murder somebody you committed the act of murder. What you intended or thought about before or during is the intent side or the mens rea part. Planned and murdered is a different charge than accidentally killed somebody.

So suppose we say the bar for murder is mens rea of "acting knowingly", and the act of the victim dying by your direction action.

But, manslaughter is mens rea of "acting with negligence", and the act of the victim dying by your direction action.

These are in effect two different crimes. The difference between them is what your intention was. If you want certain classes of murder you have to prove premeditated intent, because it's a part of the crime.

Now, strict liability says, "Mens rea does not matter here, it is not a part of the definition of this crime." What you thought or intended is simply not a part of what the court is there to consider.

The court is only there to consider is the action was done by you, and if so, you are guilty.

Edit: The handicap and small child, as far as I understand are not protected from being prosecuted in a strict liability charge in a court, but are simply less likely to make their way to a court.