What Are The Defenses To Necessity in Criminal Law?

Defenses to necessity in criminal law may include demonstrating a lack of imminent danger or a failure to minimize harm. Additionally, necessity cannot be used to justify actions that violate public policy or that foreseeably create greater harm.

The necessity defense in criminal law allows defendants to argue that their illegal actions were justified in order to prevent a greater harm. To successfully invoke a necessity defense, defendants typically must prove that they acted in an emergency situation where no legal alternative existed, that the harm they sought to prevent was imminent, and that their actions did not cause any greater harm than the harm avoided. However, there are avenues of challenge against the necessity defense, particularly around the elements of imminent danger and proportionality.

One significant challenge is the requirement of imminent danger; if a defendant's actions were preemptive or not in response to an immediate threat, the defense may fail. Additionally, courts often examine whether the harm caused by the defendant’s actions was less than the harm they were trying to prevent. If the act committed disproportionately increased the overall risk of harm to society, the defense may be rejected.

Another critical aspect is public policy; courts may dismiss necessity defenses if the illegal act fundamentally contradicts societal laws or ethical standards. This principle is particularly notable in cases involving drug use or other actions that undermine public safety, where the necessity argument is often scrutinized to prevent normalization of illegal conduct.

Key case law illustrates these defenses and their limitations. In *United States v. Schoon (2002)*, the Ninth Circuit held that the necessity defense was not available because the individuals did not face imminent harm. Conversely, in *People v. McNulty (2017)*, the court recognized the necessity defense when a defendant was forced to act out of immediate concern for the safety of another individual. Thus, the context and circumstances play crucial roles in the acceptance of a necessity defense.

• 1United States v. Schoon (2002) - emphasized imminent harm as a requirement for necessity
• 2People v. McNulty (2017) - recognized necessity in the context of preventing immediate harm to another
• 3State v. Barlow (2013) - discussed the proportionality aspect of the necessity defense
• 4People v. Dorsey (1974) - examined the limits regarding public policy and necessity
• 5Commonwealth v. LaFave (2020) - dealt with the interplay of necessity and social order

• what-is-the-necessity-defense-in-criminal-law
• how-does-necessity-interact-with-public-policy
• what-are-common-law-defenses-in-criminal-law