Justification vs. Excuse Defenses

In criminal defense cases, defendants and their lawyers will use various defenses to avoid criminal liability. While there are many excuses that may be used, they boil down to two main types: justification and excuse.

These are defenses used in criminal law to argue that a person should be considered guilty of their alleged crimes. Justification defenses are used in situations where the action is deemed acceptable under the circumstances. This means that even though the act was technically illegal, it was still the right thing to do. Excuse defenses, on the other hand, are used in situations where a defendant admits that their action was wrong but argues that they should not be liable because of circumstances beyond their control, such as mental incapacity or duress.

Justification defenses usually involve claims that the conduct was necessary to prevent greater harm. They are often used in cases of self-defense or necessity. For example, a person may use self-defense if someone else attacked them first.

Excuse defenses tend to hinge on the mental state of the defendant at the time of the act. The defense will be used to show that the person had no control over their actions. Keep in mind that the legal standards for claiming justification or excuse vary by jurisdiction.

Both justification and excuse can lead to complete acquittal, but they operate on different legal principles and considerations. Necessity may be a recognized justification defense that allows people to break the law when faced with an emergency.

• Justification defense. The defendant admits to committing the act but argues that it was legally permissible under the circumstances. The key idea is that the act was right or necessary. An example is self-defense: a person uses force to protect themselves from imminent harm.
• Excuse defense. The defendant admits the act was wrong or unlawful but argues they should not be held fully responsible due to personal conditions or circumstances. The key idea is that the act was wrong, but the actor is not blameworthy. An example is insanity: the defendant could not understand the nature of their actions due to a mental illness.

Duress is another common defense. For example, a person is forced at gunpoint to drive a getaway car after a bank robbery. While the person knowingly assisted in a crime, the duress defense argues they were under immediate threat of serious harm or death. The law sees the act as wrong, but excuses it due to the lack of free will. The act remains criminal, but the person is excused because of coercion.

To summarize:

Justification = “It was the right thing to do.”

Excuse = “I wasn’t capable of doing the right thing.”

Contact Us Today

After committing a crime, it’s important to know how to defend yourself. Having an experienced lawyer on your side can help.

A Florida criminal defense lawyer from Linkhorst & Hockin, P.A. can help reduce your penalties or avoid a conviction altogether on your side. Schedule a consultation today by calling 561-626-8880 or filling out the online form.

Source:

law.cornell.edu/wex/justification#:~:text=Justification%20is%20a%20type%20of%20defense%20that,defendant’s%20actions%20were%20justified%2C%20or%20not%20wrong.&text=For%20example%2C%20if%20a%20defendant%20is%20charged,reasonable%20and%20not%20wrong%20given%20the%20circumstances.