key term - Necessity

Definition

Necessity is a legal doctrine that allows a person to take actions that would otherwise be considered illegal if those actions are taken to prevent a greater harm from occurring. This principle is used as a defense in criminal law and tort cases, where the individual argues that their unlawful conduct was justified because it was essential to avert an imminent danger. Understanding necessity helps clarify the balance between lawful behavior and the exigencies of urgent situations.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Necessity is often invoked in emergencies where the choice is between committing a minor offense or allowing a greater harm to occur.
2. The necessity defense does not apply if the person has created the emergency situation through their own wrongful conduct.
3. Judges will typically assess the immediacy and severity of the threat when considering the validity of a necessity defense.
4. In tort law, necessity may provide a justification for trespassing if it prevents greater harm to property or individuals.
5. Cases involving necessity often involve moral and ethical considerations, as they weigh legal rules against human instincts to protect and preserve life.

Review Questions

• How does the necessity defense operate in criminal law, and what are its key components?
  • The necessity defense operates in criminal law by allowing defendants to argue that their illegal actions were justified due to an imminent threat of harm. Key components include proving that the harm avoided was greater than the harm caused by the illegal act and that there were no legal alternatives available. Essentially, it requires demonstrating that the action taken was necessary to prevent a greater evil from occurring, making it a nuanced but important aspect of legal defenses.
• Compare and contrast necessity with other defenses like duress and self-defense in terms of their application and legal implications.
  • While necessity, duress, and self-defense all provide justifications for otherwise illegal actions, they differ significantly in application. Necessity is focused on averting greater harm and is typically more subjective, assessing whether an emergency justified the action. In contrast, duress involves coercion where someone acts out of fear for their safety, making it an objective standard. Self-defense specifically relates to immediate threats against oneself, emphasizing proportionality in response. Each defense has unique requirements and contexts in which it can be applied legally.
• Evaluate the ethical implications surrounding the necessity defense and how societal values influence its acceptance in legal contexts.
  • The necessity defense raises significant ethical questions as it confronts the tension between strict adherence to law versus moral obligations to prevent harm. Societal values play a crucial role in shaping how this defense is perceived and accepted; for example, cultures prioritizing collective well-being may be more lenient toward actions taken under necessity. The challenge lies in balancing individual accountability with compassion for those acting under duress or extreme circumstances, which can lead to varied interpretations of what constitutes 'greater harm' across different jurisdictions.

Related terms

Duress:

A situation where a person is forced to act against their will or judgment due to threats or coercion, often used as a defense in legal cases.

Self-defense:

The use of reasonable force to protect oneself from imminent harm, which can also be a legal justification for actions that would otherwise be considered unlawful.

Affirmative defense: A defense strategy where the defendant acknowledges the act but argues that there was a justified reason for committing it, such as necessity or self-defense.