5.3 Defenses to criminal liability (insanity, self-defense, necessity)
5 min read•august 14, 2024
Criminal law recognizes certain defenses that can or justify otherwise illegal actions. These include insanity, , and necessity. Each defense has specific criteria and justifications rooted in principles of justice, personal autonomy, and societal interests.
Understanding these defenses is crucial for grasping the complexities of criminal liability. They reflect the law's attempt to balance punishment with fairness, considering factors like mental capacity, self-preservation, and emergency situations that may mitigate culpability.
Defenses to Criminal Liability
Insanity Defense
Top images from around the web for Insanity Defense
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - Criminal Law Notebook View original
Is this image relevant?
Frontiers | Frendak to Phenis to Breivik: An Examination of the Imposed Insanity Defense View original
Is this image relevant?
Frontiers | Frendak to Phenis to Breivik: An Examination of the Imposed Insanity Defense ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - Criminal Law Notebook View original
Is this image relevant?
Frontiers | Frendak to Phenis to Breivik: An Examination of the Imposed Insanity Defense View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
Top images from around the web for Insanity Defense
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - Criminal Law Notebook View original
Is this image relevant?
Frontiers | Frendak to Phenis to Breivik: An Examination of the Imposed Insanity Defense View original
Is this image relevant?
Frontiers | Frendak to Phenis to Breivik: An Examination of the Imposed Insanity Defense ... View original
Is this image relevant?
Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - Criminal Law Notebook View original
Is this image relevant?
Frontiers | Frendak to Phenis to Breivik: An Examination of the Imposed Insanity Defense View original
Is this image relevant?
1 of 3
- Argues the accused was not criminally responsible due to a mental disease or defect preventing understanding of actions or distinguishing right from wrong
- requires the accused did not know the nature and quality of the act or that it was wrong due to a disease of the mind (used in many jurisdictions)
- states an accused is not criminally responsible if the unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect (less commonly used)
- test considers whether the accused lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of their conduct or conform their conduct to the law due to mental disease or defect
Self-Defense Justification
- Argues the accused's otherwise criminal actions were necessary to protect themselves or others from imminent harm or danger
- Use of force must be proportional to the threat faced, and the accused must have a reasonable belief that the use of force was necessary
- Some jurisdictions have a duty to retreat before using force, while others have "stand your ground" laws not requiring retreat
Necessity Defense
- Also known as the "" defense, argues the accused's illegal actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm from occurring
- Harm avoided must be greater than the harm caused by the illegal act, and there must have been no legal alternatives available
- Provides a legal avenue for individuals to avoid punishment for actions taken in genuine emergency situations to prevent more serious consequences
Justifications for Criminal Defenses
Insanity Defense Justifications
- Based on the principle that individuals should not be held criminally responsible if they lack the mental capacity to understand their behavior or distinguish right from wrong
- Reflects the idea that punishment should be reserved for those who are morally blameworthy and have the capacity to control their actions
- Ensures that mentally ill individuals receive appropriate treatment rather than punishment, upholding the principles of justice and compassion
- Critics argue the can be abused and may undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system
Self-Defense Justifications
- Justified on the grounds that individuals have a right to protect themselves and others from imminent harm or danger
- Recognizes the principle of personal autonomy and the right to defend one's life and physical integrity
- requirement ensures the use of force is reasonable and not excessive given the circumstances
- Balances the need for individuals to protect themselves with the societal interest in preventing excessive or unjustified violence
Necessity Defense Justifications
- Based on the utilitarian principle that actions causing harm may be justified if they prevent a greater harm from occurring
- Acknowledges that in exceptional circumstances, following the law may lead to worse outcomes than breaking it
- Strict requirements prevent abuse and ensure application only in genuine emergency situations
- Reflects the idea that the law should be flexible enough to account for extreme situations where breaking the law is the lesser of two evils
Role in the Criminal Justice System
- Defenses ensure individuals are not punished for actions that are legally and morally justified or excused
- Provide a safeguard against unjust convictions and help maintain the integrity and fairness of the criminal justice system
- Reflect important philosophical principles, such as personal autonomy, moral culpability, and the balance between individual rights and societal interests
- Allow for the consideration of extenuating circumstances and mitigating factors in the administration of justice
Standards for Defense Applicability
Insanity Defense Standards
- Vary across jurisdictions but generally require a clear connection between the accused's mental illness and their criminal behavior
- M'Naghten Rule sets a high bar, requiring the accused did not understand the nature of their actions or that they were wrong
- Model Penal Code test is more flexible, considering whether the accused lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of their conduct or conform to the law
- Criticisms include the difficulty in defining and proving mental illness, potential for abuse, and lack of consistency across jurisdictions
Self-Defense Standards
- Applicability depends on the reasonableness of the accused's belief that the use of force was necessary and the proportionality of the force used
- "Reasonable person" standard determines whether the accused's belief in the necessity of force was justified given the circumstances
- Duty to retreat and "stand your ground" laws impact applicability depending on the jurisdiction
- Challenges include determining the reasonableness of the accused's actions and potential bias based on factors such as race, gender, and socioeconomic status
Necessity Defense Standards
- Strict requirements must be met for applicability in a criminal case
- Accused must demonstrate an imminent threat of harm, harm avoided was greater than harm caused by the illegal act, and no legal alternatives were available
- Rarely successful as courts are reluctant to excuse criminal behavior except in the most extreme circumstances
- Criticisms include potential for abuse and difficulty in weighing relative harms caused and avoided
Applying Defenses to Criminal Cases
John Hinckley Jr. (Insanity Defense)
- Attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981
- Lawyers argued he suffered from schizophrenia and was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions, meeting the criteria under the Model Penal Code test
- Successfully used the insanity defense, sparking a national debate and leading to reforms in several states
Bernhard Goetz (Self-Defense)
- Shot four young men on a New York City subway in 1984
- Claimed he feared for his life and believed the men were about to rob him, justifying his use of force
- Acquitted on attempted murder charges, raising questions about the limits of self-defense and the impact of race and public perception on the application of the law
Hypothetical Necessity Defense Scenario
- Person breaks into a pharmacy to steal medication for a critically ill family member who cannot afford the treatment
- To successfully argue necessity, the accused would need to demonstrate the harm of the family member's potential death outweighed the harm of the theft and no legal alternatives were available
- Case would hinge on specific circumstances and the accused's ability to prove strict requirements for the were met
Hypothetical Insanity Defense Scenario
- Person with a documented history of mental illness commits a violent crime while in a delusional state
- Applicability of the insanity defense would depend on specific facts of the case and jurisdiction's standards for the defense
- Factors such as nature and severity of mental illness, connection between illness and criminal behavior, and accused's ability to understand wrongfulness of actions would be critical in determining success of the insanity defense
Key Terms to Review (20)
Affirmative Defense: An affirmative defense is a legal strategy used by a defendant in a criminal case, where the defendant acknowledges the facts of the case but provides additional information or justification that negates liability. This type of defense doesn't simply deny the charges; instead, it offers evidence or arguments that, if accepted, can absolve the defendant from responsibility. This approach is especially relevant in situations where justifications like mental incapacity, self-protection, or urgent circumstances are claimed.
Burden of persuasion: The burden of persuasion refers to the obligation of a party in a legal dispute to convince the trier of fact, such as a judge or jury, of the truth of their claims or defenses. This concept is crucial in determining how cases are evaluated, as it dictates which party must establish their assertions with sufficient evidence and to what degree. In contexts involving defenses against criminal liability, this burden often shifts depending on the specific nature of the defense being invoked.
Choice of Evils: Choice of evils is a legal defense that allows a person to commit an otherwise unlawful act in order to prevent a greater harm. This defense is often grounded in the idea of necessity, where the individual faces a situation that compels them to make a choice between two evils, thus justifying their actions as a means of averting a more serious consequence. This principle is crucial in evaluating situations where moral dilemmas arise and informs discussions around self-defense and mental health considerations.
Competency: Competency refers to a person's legal capacity to understand and participate in legal proceedings, particularly when it comes to their ability to stand trial or make informed decisions regarding their defense. This concept is crucial in assessing whether an individual can be held criminally responsible for their actions, as it directly ties into various defenses like insanity, self-defense, and necessity.
Complete Defense: A complete defense is a legal argument used in criminal cases that, if successful, absolves the defendant of criminal liability for their actions. This type of defense negates the elements of the crime, demonstrating that the defendant should not be held responsible due to specific circumstances such as mental incapacity, the necessity of their actions, or self-defense. These defenses are critical in ensuring justice by recognizing situations where individuals may be justified in their conduct.
Diminished Capacity: Diminished capacity is a legal defense that acknowledges a defendant's mental impairment or psychological condition at the time of an offense, which may limit their ability to understand the nature of their actions or to form the requisite intent for a crime. This concept is significant as it connects to various defenses in criminal law, indicating that a person may not be fully culpable due to mental health issues, potentially affecting the outcome of legal proceedings.
Durham Rule: The Durham Rule is a legal standard for determining criminal liability based on mental illness, asserting that a defendant is not responsible for their actions if, due to a mental disorder, they could not appreciate the nature of their act or distinguish right from wrong. This rule connects to broader concepts of insanity defenses, emphasizing the importance of mental health evaluations in assessing culpability, as well as the need for appropriate legal protections for individuals with serious psychological conditions.
Excuse: In legal terms, an excuse is a justification that absolves a person from criminal liability, suggesting that the individual should not be held responsible for their actions due to specific circumstances. These circumstances can include mental incapacity, immediate threat to life or well-being, or the necessity of committing an otherwise criminal act to avoid a greater harm. This concept plays a crucial role in determining whether individuals can be held accountable for their actions in varying situations.
Insanity defense: The insanity defense is a legal argument used in criminal cases to assert that a defendant was unable to understand the nature of their actions or distinguish right from wrong due to a severe mental disorder at the time of the crime. This defense connects deeply with the elements of a crime, particularly in evaluating mens rea, or the mental state required for criminal liability, as it questions whether the defendant possessed the necessary intent. It also serves as a significant counter to accusations of criminal liability, highlighting the intersection between mental health and the justice system.
Justification: Justification refers to the reasons or rationale that a person provides to defend their actions or decisions, especially in a legal context. In the realm of criminal law, justification is crucial as it determines whether a defendant's conduct can be excused under certain defenses, allowing them to avoid liability for actions that would typically be deemed criminal. This concept serves to balance individual rights against societal norms and legal principles.
Legal Positivism: Legal positivism is a school of thought in the philosophy of law that asserts that law is a set of rules and norms created by human beings and is not necessarily tied to morality or natural law. This approach emphasizes the importance of social facts and institutional processes in the creation and interpretation of law, separating legal systems from moral or ethical considerations.
M'Naghten Rule: The M'Naghten Rule is a legal standard used to determine whether a defendant can be held responsible for a crime due to insanity. This rule states that a person may be excused from criminal liability if, at the time of the act, they were suffering from a severe mental disorder that prevented them from understanding the nature of their actions or distinguishing right from wrong. This rule is significant in discussions about insanity defenses, as it focuses on the defendant's mental state during the commission of the crime.
Mitigating circumstances: Mitigating circumstances are factors that can lessen the severity of a criminal act, potentially reducing the punishment or liability of the defendant. These circumstances help to provide context about why a crime was committed, influencing judgments about culpability and punishment. They can be tied to personal history, mental state, or situational factors that may have impacted the defendant's actions at the time of the offense.
Model Penal Code: The Model Penal Code (MPC) is a comprehensive set of criminal laws created to standardize and modernize the American legal framework regarding criminal offenses and defenses. It aims to provide clear definitions of crimes and their elements, including actus reus and mens rea, while offering guidance on various defenses to criminal liability and intentional torts. By establishing a uniform system, the MPC helps promote fairness and consistency in the application of criminal law across different jurisdictions.
Moral Reasoning: Moral reasoning refers to the process of determining what is right or wrong in a given situation based on ethical principles and values. This involves the ability to analyze situations, consider different perspectives, and make judgments that align with one's moral beliefs. Understanding moral reasoning is crucial when examining the interplay between legal frameworks and ethical standards, as well as when assessing justifications for actions in the context of criminal liability.
Necessity defense: The necessity defense is a legal justification used in criminal cases where a defendant claims that their illegal act was necessary to prevent a greater harm. This defense hinges on the idea that in certain situations, individuals must make difficult choices to avoid serious consequences, thus raising questions about moral and legal responsibility.
Preponderance of evidence: Preponderance of evidence is the standard of proof commonly used in civil cases, where the burden is to show that something is more likely true than not. This standard plays a critical role in determining liability or guilt in various legal contexts, including criminal law and tort law, balancing the scales of justice to ensure fairness for all parties involved.
Proportionality: Proportionality is a legal principle that ensures that the response or punishment for an offense is appropriate to the severity of the act committed. It connects the seriousness of the crime with the punishment imposed, aiming for a balanced and just outcome that reflects both the nature of the offense and the broader societal values.
Reasonable person standard: The reasonable person standard is a legal benchmark used to determine whether an individual's conduct is considered acceptable or negligent in various legal contexts. This standard reflects how a typical, rational individual would act in similar circumstances, establishing a baseline for evaluating behavior, especially in cases involving criminal liability or defenses such as insanity, self-defense, and necessity.
Self-defense: Self-defense is a legal doctrine that allows a person to use reasonable force to protect themselves from imminent harm or unlawful aggression. This concept connects to various aspects of criminal law, including the elements of a crime where the intention behind actions (mens rea) and the actions themselves (actus reus) come into play, as well as how self-defense serves as a crucial defense against criminal liability in cases where individuals are charged with offenses following an act of defense. It also intersects with intentional torts, where self-defense may justify actions that otherwise would be considered tortious.