Excuses and justifications
Excuses and justifications are two distinct defenses employed within the American criminal justice system to address wrongdoing. Justification occurs when a defendant acknowledges their actions but claims they were appropriate under the circumstances, such as in cases of self-defense. In these situations, the law recognizes certain actions as permissible, like justifiable homicide, which allows a person to take another's life in defense of their own. Conversely, when individuals offer excuses, they admit their actions were wrong but argue they should not bear full responsibility due to external factors, such as duress or insanity.
The legal recognition of these defenses reflects a nuanced approach to accountability, emphasizing the importance of individual culpability in determining guilt or innocence. While justifications can often absolve individuals from legal repercussions, excuses may still provoke debate regarding personal responsibility. The categorization of these defenses can be complex, as some situations may blur the lines between justification and excuse, leading to varied interpretations in court. Understanding these legal concepts is essential for grasping how the justice system addresses the moral implications of human behavior.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Excuses and justifications
SIGNIFICANCE: American criminal justice systems allow for various defenses against charges of wrongdoing; successfully used, these defenses exonerate or mitigate liability.
Excuses and justifications are two distinct defenses recognized in American criminal law. In justification, defendants deny that what they had done was wrong and claim that, given the circumstances, their actions were right and justified. By contrast, when people offer excuses for misconduct, they concede their actions to be wrong but state that they are not fully to blame. With excuses, culpability is denied, and so is responsibility—or, at least, full responsibility—for the misconduct. This differs from justifications, whereby the individuals take responsibility for their conduct but insist that it was the proper way to act in that situation.
A paradigm of a justification is killing in self-defense. The killing of an aggressor in defense of one’s own life is not considered a violation of the law against murder but rather a “justifiable homicide.” In this situation, a defendant admits to killing another person, often along with a concession that the taking of life is typically wrong. Modern American law recognizes that in certain circumstances, the killing of another person to protect one’s own life is permissible. The law also covers other forms of justifiable killing.
Another type of justification is necessity, or the lesser of evils defense. An example would be a ship’s crew tossing cargo overboard in a storm in order to prevent the ship from sinking.
Excuses commonly recognized in American law include duress , ignorance, mistake, and insanity. These are subject to careful definition and limitation. In the Model Penal Code , “duress” is said to be a defense when the actor “was coerced . . . by the use of, or a threat to use, unlawful force against his person or the person of another.” The threat has to be sufficiently strong that a reasonable person would not be able to resist it. In People v. Court , for example, a man’s conviction for perjury during a murder trial was overturned; he had not been able during the trial to present evidence of duress—namely, that numerous threats against his life had been made to prevent him from testifying against the murderer.
Allowance for excuses and justifications shows that a legal system is concerned with linking criminal liability and punishment to individual culpability. Distinguishing between justification and excuse is important because when seemingly wrongful conduct is deemed justified, the law is, in effect, condoning that action. Although this is not true for excused conduct, it may be troubling to exempt individuals from full or partial responsibility for wrongdoing even when they have some excuse, especially when the excuse seems contrived.
The distinction is quite clear, but the categorizing of defenses may be difficult and controversial. Two examples that may arguably be counted as excuses or as justifications are the defense of superior authority’s orders and the battered woman’s defense.
Bibliography
Fletcher, George. Basic Concepts of Criminal Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
"Justification." Cornell Law School, June 2023, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/justification. Accessed 26 June 2024.
Singer, Richard, Shima Baradaran Baughman, and J. Q. La Ford. Criminal Law: Examples and Explanations. 8th ed. Aspen, 2021.