Laws and Defenses

Law is a complex subject. It is essential for keeping a tranquil and protected nation. However, there are cases when an alleged activity may have some justification that may end in dismissal to the accused or the acknowledgment of diminished obligation. Such justifications are called defenses. As the defendant, you and your criminal lawyer will likely want to build some sort of criminal defense to prevent a guilty sentence. Criminal defense is a strategic argument that aims to test the validity and adequacy of the testimony of the prosecution.

There are a handful of different defenses to criminal liability.

First, we have the defense of necessity. " The defense of necessity (or "choice of evils") is uniformly viewed as straightforward, innocuous, and virtually insubstantial legal principle, at least as a matter of legal doctrine. The necessity defense essentially permits an accused to admit the elements of an offense but avoid punishment if her illegal acts were designed to obtain a greater good" (Martin).

Get quality help now

Dr. Karlyna PhD

Verified writer

Proficient in: Moral

4.7 (235)

“ Amazing writer! I am really satisfied with her work. An excellent price as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

I feel that this defense is comparable to self- defense or defense of others as a defense to assault or an unlawful homicide, but the only difference is that necessity is a defense to crimes against property. If I were apart of the court system I would be very hesitant to allow this defense, due to concern of the example it would give and public message. This certain defense seems like it would let many criminals get off because they claim that they were faced with a situation that requires doing something illegal to prevent serious harm.

Second, we have defense of duress. "Criminal duress has, at its heart, the principle of freedom. The criminal law, wisely or not, has a post made for itself a world of free-willed agents and has fixed responsibility for the action upon most classes of actors, except those who have "acted under compulsion" (Newman). This defense also resembles self-defense in some regards, since it results from a threat of imminent death or severe bodily injury, and it demands that the defendant had a reasonable fear that the treatment would be carried out. Also in the journal, it stated, "If the person commits an act under compulsion, responsibility for the act cannot be ascribed to him since, in effect, it was not his desire, or motivation, or will, which led to the act" (Newman). I feel that this defense is needed because it is in place for victims that committed a crime because they were held against their free will by threat of force or actual force and brutality.

Third, we have the defense of automatism. "A person who commits what would otherwise be a criminal act while unconscious is not guilty of a crime"(Corrado). An example of this kind of defense would be a guy who butchers his spouse while sleepwalking. Also, the journal stated, " This rule of law applies to persons who are not conscious of acting but who preform acts while asleep or while suffering from a delirium of fever, or because of an attack"(Corrado). The liability requirement for various criminal offenses is a subjective mental state. Such as a guilty mind or involving an intention to perform the act and knowledge of circumstances. Automatism is a very special case and would be challenging to prove in a hearing. This defense would be simple for anyone who may have a disease of the mind, intoxication or some other circumstance because they can claim that they were not in the right state of mind at the time.

Fourth we have self-defense. Self-defense refers to the freedom we all have to defend ourselves from a suffering force of violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting the force of violence. Self-defense is such an important defense that it can be found in justifying that war is needed. For example in a journal posted by the Cambridge University press stated, " But if war, at least in some instances, lies on a continuum with individual self- and other-defense, and if acts of individual self- and other-defense can sometimes be morally justified, then war can in principle be morally justified as well. It follows that the only coherent forms of pacifism are those that reject the permissibility of individual self- or other-defense for example, those based on an absolute prohibition of violence or killing"(McMahan). I would consider self-defense to be one of my favorite defenses. I say this because being able to protect yourself in all situations is a confidence booster as much as it is a reassurance. Self-defense helps prepare you for unexpected situations and also helps strengthen mental and physical health.

Fifth we have the defense of infancy. "Since 1992 all but 10 States have greatly liberalized the ability of the state to try juveniles as adults, a number of them at earlier ages than previously. Common law rules defined 14 as the age of adulthood for purposes of criminal responsibility. However, with the establishment of the juvenile court at the turn of the 20th century, the status of common law rules became far less clear. Pleas of infancy, or incapacity based on age, have generally proven to be ineffective in juvenile delinquency proceedings around the country"(Shepherd). This defense is based on the assumption that minors are incapable of forming the criminal intention in the same manner as adults, which most children are but it all depends on how they are being raised. Children lack the emotional and cognitive maturity to understand the moral nature of their actions.

With this defense, a child under 7 can kill a bystander in a crowd and not have a consequence for it. Having the defense of infancy in play makes young children immune to penalty, thus allowing the opportunity to commit serious crimes with impunity. Furthermore, under a widespread assumption that children now are more self-aware and self-determining than they were in the past, courts are frequently finding evidence of real criminal intent in juvenile delinquents, often justifying the transference of the juvenile defendant to the jurisdiction of adult criminal courts.

The sixth defense I will be sharing is the defense of entrapment. " (Entrapment is the) conception and planning of an offense by an officer and his procurement of its commission by one who would not have perpetrated it except for the trickery, persuasion, or fraud of the officer"(Defeo). I feel that the most common situation for this defense to be put in place is when a law enforcement officer uses coercion or other overbearing tactics to persuade someone to perform a crime. Only government agents can entrap civilians, so that is why this defense is needed to protect us from unlawful acts done by public officials. Also in another journal, it states, " on the one hand, some involvement in the unlawful activities of criminal rings may be effective means to detect many crimes, particularly those that do not involve a complaining victim" (Carlson). From that statement, it tells me that some officers feel that they can catch more criminals if they just go along with what criminals do. These officers feel that to secure the trust and cooperation of these criminals that they must be prepared to cultivate a target over some time, so this seems that the officers are getting a strategy together that goes against law enforcement rules to obtain a better quota for catching criminals.

Last but not least we have the defense of double jeopardy. "The issue is whether a man who has been acquitted or convicted by one sovereignty can be tried over again for the same affair by another sovereignty. In 1959, the supreme court announced, six to three, in Abbate v. the United States, that nothing in the federal constitution prevented this form of double jeopardy"(Fisher). This defense protects defendants from the continuous threat of prosecution after the case has been decided. With the government's vast power and assets at its disposal, they can use their superior resources to harass a citizen with various proceedings and trials for the identical act. The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment is made to protect citizens from the government and that why it is another favorite defense of mine.

In conclusion, there are numerous criminal defenses that a defendant can invoke. Most people want to evade any criminal charges as soon as possible and defense is a perfect way to help with trying to get you out of that sticky situation. The criminal defense you prefer to use will depend on the crime you are charged with and the evidence you have at your disposal.