Affirmative defenses fall under the categories of justification and excuse. Answer these questions:
1) Discuss the legal and practical differences between a justification and an excuse.
2) What is needed for an insanity plea to be approved by the courts?
3) After Bernie was arrested for robbery, his mental condition went from functioning to nonfunctioning. He no longer can help his lawyer defend him because he is no longer competent. What defense, if any, does Bernie have to the charge of robbery? Will he be successful? Why?
Sample Answer
In the realm of criminal law, affirmative defenses allow a defendant to avoid criminal liability even if the prosecution proves the elements of the crime. These defenses typically bifurcate into two distinct philosophical and legal categories: justification and excuse.
1) Justification vs. Excuse: Legal and Practical Differences
While both lead to an acquittal or a reduction in charges, the underlying logic is fundamentally different.
Justification (The Act was Right): A justification defense focuses on the act. It suggests that under the specific circumstances, the defendant's conduct was socially acceptable or even desirable. The most common example is self-defense.
Legal Perspective: The law recognizes that the "harm" caused was necessary to avoid a "greater harm."
Practical Difference: Because the act itself is deemed "justified," third parties (like bystanders) generally have no legal right to interfere with the defendant’s actions.
Excuse (The Actor was Not Responsible): An excuse defense focuses on the actor. It admits that the act was wrong and caused harm, but argues that the defendant should not be held liable because of a specific disability or condition. Examples include insanity, duress, or infancy.