Necessity or Justification as a Defense
Contents
Necessity or Justification as a Defense
Necessity and justification are two related legal defenses that can be used in criminal cases. They allow a defendant to argue that their otherwise illegal actions were necessary or justified under the specific circumstances. While they seem similar, there are some key differences between these defenses that are important to understand.
The necessity defense argues that the defendant’s actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm from occurring. For example, a person trespassing on private property to seek shelter during a dangerous storm could argue necessity. The justification is that breaking the law was required to prevent something worse – harm or death from exposure to the storm.
For the necessity defense to work, the defendant’s illegal act must have been the only reasonable option available. There must have been no legal alternatives that could have prevented the greater harm or damage. The threat of harm must also have been imminent. If the danger was not immediate, the defendant would have difficulty claiming necessity.
The justification defense is broader. It argues that the defendant’s actions were morally justified, even if not strictly necessary. For example, a person who uses reasonable force to protect themselves or others from an attack could claim justification. Their actions were not “necessary” in the strict sense, but were justified under the circumstances.
Unlike necessity, justification does not require the action to be the only way to prevent harm. The defense only needs to show that the action was a reasonable and morally defensible choice, even if other options existed. The threat also does not need to be as immediate as with necessity.
Key Differences
So in summary, some key differences between necessity and justification:
- Necessity requires the action be necessary to prevent imminent harm, with no reasonable legal alternatives. Justification only requires the action be morally defensible and reasonable under the circumstances.
- Necessity is about preventing direct harm to the defendant. Justification can be about protecting others.
- Necessity focuses on lack of choices. Justification focuses on the reasonableness of the choice made.
Legal Precedents and Implications
There are some important legal precedents that have shaped how necessity and justification work as criminal defenses. For necessity, a leading case is The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens. In this 19th century British case, sailors who were shipwrecked and starving were found not to have a necessity defense for killing and eating one of the crew members. The court ruled that taking one life to save others could not be considered necessary or morally justified .
This precedent established that necessity requires the threat of death or serious bodily harm to oneself, with no reasonable legal alternative. It set a very high bar for the defense. Other cases like Spakes v. State have upheld similar interpretations, denying necessity unless all alternatives were exhausted .
For justification defenses, cases like Brown v. United States established that a perceived threat, even if mistaken, can form the basis for a valid claim of self-defense or defense of others . The reasonableness of the defendant’s beliefs and actions is the key factor, rather than the actual level of threat. This gives more flexibility than necessity.
Overall, current laws place limits on using necessity or justification defenses. They cannot be claimed in cases like murder, except in extreme circumstances with a direct threat to life as the only alternative. But for lesser crimes, these defenses remain an option if the accused can demonstrate their actions were reasonable and morally justified, if not always strictly necessary.
Specific Defenses
Some specific types of necessity or justification defenses that may arise in criminal cases include:
- Self-Defense: Arguing that force was necessary to protect oneself from imminent harm or death.
- Defense of Others: Similar to self-defense but protecting someone else from harm.
- Defense of Property: Using reasonable force to protect property from damage or theft.
- Law Enforcement Necessity: Officers breaking procedure because it was necessary under the circumstances.
- Medical Necessity: Doctors taking unusual treatments to save a patient’s life.
- Duress: Committing a crime due to threats of immediate harm from another if you refuse.
The specifics of the situation will determine if any of these defenses are likely to succeed. The main questions will be whether the accused had reasonable beliefs about the threat, made reasonable choices, and used an appropriate level of force or lawbreaking. If excessiveness can be shown, then even defenses like self-defense may fail.
Pros and Cons of These Defenses
Allowing necessity and justification defenses can have both advantages and drawbacks:
Potential Pros:
- They provide protection for people forced into difficult situations.
- They acknowledge extenuating circumstances and human weakness.
- They encourage people to choose the least harmful course of action.
- They uphold morality, allowing reasonable acts to protect lives.
Potential Cons:
- They could be abused by people looking for loopholes.
- They require judging complex, unique situations without perfect knowledge.
- They could lead to harm if people assume these defenses will automatically apply.
- They could undermine rule of law if applied too broadly.
Overall, most legal experts argue necessity and justification play an important role in criminal justice. They provide appropriate exceptions and flexibility when the law confronts complex realities. However, they also caution that these defenses require careful scrutiny to prevent misuse. The specifics of each unique case must be weighed thoroughly.
Conclusion
Necessity and justification defenses acknowledge that even good people can be forced by circumstance to break the law. But protecting people’s lives and welfare should not mean abandoning morality and social responsibility entirely. These defenses aim to strike a balance – permitting reasonable exceptions to the law, while setting limits to prevent abuse. Their careful application by courts will continue shaping how justice accommodates difficult realities.
So in summary, necessity and justification provide valuable legal defenses in the right circumstances. But they are also limited and open to potential abuse. Their role is an evolving one as courts weigh individual cases and seek justice both for defendants and for society as a whole.
References
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_Stephens
https://casetext.com/case/spakes-v-state-114
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/335/