and Austin W. Scott, Jr., Substantive Criminal Law § 3.8 at 342-44 (1986)). We noted with approval the seven factors LaFave and Scott have suggested be balanced in deciding this question. One of these factors, the severity of the punishment, suggests that the legislature might have intended to require proof of mental state for the enhancement of dealing in cocaine. .Other factors, particularly the great danger of the prohibited conduct and the great number of expected prosecutions, suggest that the General Assembly likely did intend to create a strict Hability enhancement. Our assessment of these factors makes it difficult to conclude that the General Assembly intended to require separate proof the defendant knew that the dealing occurred near a school but failed 623 (Ind.Ct.App.1985) (<HOLDING>). 2 . These factors are: 1) the legislative
holding obscenity statute required proof of scienter holding that proof of an explicit agreement is not required holding that proof of scienter is required to succeed on a claim under  1991a1 but not under  1991a2 or  1991a3 holding child molesting statute required proof of scienter holding that the incredible dubiosity rule was inapplicable and affirming the defendants conviction for child molesting