An excuse defense Research Essay

An Excuse Defense

An excuse defense is used when a defendant acknowledges that they committed a crime but believes they shouldn’t be held accountable because they didn’t intend to do so. (Morgan, Turner & Hart, 2013).

Conditions for Freedom

Even though the defendant may have broken the law with his or her action, the judge may decide to free them due to conditions like mental illness, old age, factual errors, automatism, or legal errors. (Peters et al., 2013).

Defense Excuse - Automatism

Absent the aforementioned circumstances, the accused’s acts would otherwise constitute a crime. Defense excuse includes automatism, where the criminal offense is influenced by the environment around the defendant. Despite committing the actus Reus, the accused is not responsible due to lack of mens rea (Skillbred, 2016).

Involuntary Intoxication

For example, the accused might have found himself or herself in an automatic state due to the influence of some drugs administered by a physician such as sodium pentothal. Another excuse defense is involuntary intoxication where the defendant might have consumed alcohol or drugs involuntarily that affected his or her decision (Mela & Luther, 2013).

Mistake of Fact

For an instant, use of the medical drug without the consumer being aware of its effects and leading the person to criminal act. Also, excuse defense may arise due to the mistake of fact. A situation where the accused can approve that the criminal act committed was an honest and genuine mistake such as a hunter mistakenly shooting a fellow may be treated as a mistake of fact (Zhao & Ferguson, 2013).

Necessity Defense

Lasty, the case of necessity where someone involves in criminal actions to avoid a greater injustice (Lyons, 2013). For example, a driver may decide to kill one pedestrian in order to save several lives in a bus that would have involved in an accident due to the pedestrian.

References

Lyons, E. C. (2013). Slaughter of the Innocents: Justification, Excuse and the Principle of Double Effect. Berkeley J. Crim. L., 18, 231.

Mela, M., & Luther, G. (2013). Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: Can diminished responsibility diminish criminal behaviour?. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 36(1), 46-54.

Morgan, P., Turner, L., & Hart, E. T. (2013). Ignorance of International Law Is No Excuse, or How the Florida Legislature Ticked Off Canada. Int’l J. Legal Info., 41, 309.

Peters, C. S., Lampinen, J. M., & Malesky Jr, L. A. (2013). A trap for the unwary: Jury decision making in cases involving the entrapment defense. Law and human behavior, 37(1), 45.

Skillbred, D. (2016). Getting Defensive: Excuses for the Construction of the Alaska Highway. Historical Perspectives: Santa Clara University Undergraduate Journal of History, Series II, 10(1), 12.

Zhao, L., & Ferguson, G. (2013). Understanding China’s mental illness defense. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 24(5), 634-657.