Justification and Excuse: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Justification defenses include [[necessity| Necessity]],[[Defense of others]], [[Defense of property]], Law Enforcement Defense, [[Consent]]. | Justification defenses include [[necessity| Necessity]],[[Defense of others]], [[Defense of property]], Law Enforcement Defense, [[Consent]]. | ||
Excuse defenses include [[Duress]], [[Entrapment]], [[Mistake of Law | Ignorance of the Law]], [[Diminished Capacity Defense]], Provocation, Insanity, and Infancy. | Excuse defenses include [[Duress]], [[Entrapment]], [[Mistake of Law | Ignorance of the Law]], [[Diminished Capacity Defense]], Provocation, [[Insanity Defense]], and Infancy. | ||
---- | ---- | ||
Revision as of 15:37, 12 November 2010
The common law as well as the Model Penal Code classifies defenses as either justifications or excuses.
The difference between justification and excuse is explained in the commentaries to the Model Penal Code "[t]o say that someone's conduct is 'justified' ordinarily connotes that the conduct is thought to be right, or at least not undesirable." . . ."to say that someone's conduct is 'excused' ordinarily connotes that the conduct is thought to be undesirable but that for some reason teh actor is not to be blamed for it.[1]
In some case, a given defense may act as both a justification or excuse.
Justification defenses include Necessity,Defense of others, Defense of property, Law Enforcement Defense, Consent.
Excuse defenses include Duress, Entrapment, Ignorance of the Law, Diminished Capacity Defense, Provocation, Insanity Defense, and Infancy.
Notes
- ↑ Model Penal Code Commentaries Article 3, introduction, at 3
