Criminal Defenses
Introduction
Welcome, everyone, to our second lecture on the fundamental principles of criminal law. Today, we will explore criminal defenses, which are vital in understanding how defendants can avoid or mitigate liability in criminal proceedings. Defenses in criminal law are diverse and can either justify criminal behavior—arguing that the act was lawful under the circumstances—or excuse it, acknowledging that while the act was unlawful, the defendant should not be held fully accountable due to a specific condition or set of circumstances. We will also explore procedural defenses, which address the fairness of the process through which a defendant was charged or prosecuted.
Our session will focus on three main types of defenses: justification defenses, excuse defenses, and procedural defenses. We will end with an analysis of the People v. Goetz case, which serves as an example of how self-defense can be interpreted in court.
1. Justification Defenses
Justification defenses are asserted when the defendant acknowledges that they committed the act in question but argues that their actions were justified under the specific circumstances. This means that the behavior, although technically a crime, was appropriate given the scenario.
A. Self-Defense
One of the most common forms of justification is self-defense, which allows an individual to use force to protect themselves from imminent harm. The principle behind self-defense is that individuals have a natural right to defend their lives and bodies when faced with an immediate threat. However, there are strict limitations regarding how much force can be used. The force applied must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat.
Example: Imagine you are walking in a dimly lit parking lot when an assailant confronts you with a knife and demands your belongings. You genuinely believe that the assailant intends to cause you serious harm. In this scenario, you may use force, even potentially deadly force, if necessary, to protect yourself. However, the key requirement is that your use of force must be reasonable given the nature of the threat. Using deadly force in response to a non-lethal push or shove, for instance, would be considered excessive and would likely negate a claim of self-defense.
Limitations: Self-defense cannot be claimed if the defendant was the initial aggressor. For instance, if a defendant initiates a fight by throwing the first punch, they generally cannot claim self-defense if the other party retaliates. Similarly, self-defense is not valid if the level of force used is disproportionate to the threat. Suppose someone responds to being slapped by pulling out a gun and shooting the aggressor—this response is disproportionate to the initial, non-lethal threat.
B. Defense of Others
Defense of others operates on principles similar to self-defense but applies when the defendant is protecting someone else. If a person reasonably believes that another individual is in imminent danger of harm, they are permitted to use force to protect that person.
Example: Suppose you witness a stranger being assaulted on the street. You may step in and use reasonable force to protect the victim, assuming that you believe they are in immediate danger. Again, the key element is that the force used must be proportionate to the threat. For example, using non-lethal force to intervene in a fistfight might be justified, whereas using a firearm could be seen as disproportionate unless there was a clear threat of serious bodily harm.
C. Defense of Property
The defense of property allows individuals to use reasonable force to protect their belongings from theft or damage. This defense is more limited compared to self-defense, especially regarding the use of deadly force. Deadly force is almost never justified solely for the protection of property.
Example: If a person tries to break into your car while you are present, you may use reasonable force, such as physically restraining them, to protect your property. However, using deadly force—such as shooting the intruder—is generally not permissible unless you can demonstrate that you faced an imminent threat to your life. The value of human life outweighs property, and thus the use of force must always be balanced against the nature of the harm being prevented.
2. Excuse Defenses
Excuse defenses differ from justification defenses because they admit that the act was wrong but argue that the defendant should not be held fully responsible due to circumstances beyond their control or mental state at the time of the act.
A. Insanity
The insanity defense is invoked when a defendant claims that they were suffering from a significant mental disorder during the commission of the crime, which prevented them from understanding the wrongfulness of their actions or conforming their conduct to the law. There are different standards used to assess insanity:
M’Naghten Rule: Under this rule, the defendant must demonstrate that they were either unable to understand the nature and quality of their actions or did not know that their actions were wrong due to a mental defect. This rule is quite strict and focuses on the defendant's understanding of their actions at the time of the crime.
Example: A person suffering from paranoid schizophrenia may kill someone they believe is a government agent sent to harm them. If, due to their mental state, they genuinely did not understand that killing the person was wrong, they may be found not guilty by reason of insanity under the M'Naghten Rule.
Model Penal Code (MPC) Standard: The MPC standard provides a more lenient approach, allowing an insanity defense if the defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of their conduct or to conform their behavior to the requirements of the law.
Example: Suppose a defendant with severe bipolar disorder is in the midst of a manic episode during which they commit arson. If they can demonstrate that their disorder rendered them incapable of understanding or controlling their actions, they might be excused under the MPC standard.
B. Duress
The duress defense applies when a defendant claims they committed a crime because they were coerced through threats of immediate harm to themselves or others. The defendant must prove that the threat was credible and immediate, leaving no reasonable way to avoid the situation except by committing the crime.
Example: If a person is held at gunpoint and ordered to rob a bank, they could claim duress because their actions were compelled by an immediate threat to their life. However, there are limitations—duress is generally not available as a defense for crimes involving the taking of an innocent life.
C. Intoxication
Intoxication can be either voluntary or involuntary, and its effectiveness as a defense depends on the specific circumstances of the crime and the nature of the intoxication.
Voluntary Intoxication: When someone willingly consumes drugs or alcohol, they cannot usually use intoxication as a defense. However, in some cases, it can negate specific intent for certain crimes. For example, first-degree murder requires premeditation and specific intent to kill. If a defendant can show that they were too intoxicated to form this specific intent, they might avoid a conviction for first-degree murder, though they could still be guilty of a lesser charge like manslaughter.
Involuntary Intoxication: If a person becomes intoxicated without their knowledge—such as someone spiking their drink—they may claim they were not in control of their actions and thus lacked the necessary mens rea.
Example: A person unknowingly ingests a drug that causes severe disorientation and commits a violent act. If they can demonstrate that the intoxication was involuntary, this may serve as an excuse for their criminal behavior.
3. Procedural Defenses
Procedural defenses do not focus on the defendant’s actions but rather on the fairness of the legal process. These defenses argue that the defendant’s rights were violated during the investigation or prosecution, and as a result, the charges should be dismissed.
A. Entrapment
Entrapment occurs when law enforcement induces an individual to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed. This defense focuses on the actions of government agents, asserting that their behavior was so coercive that it caused the defendant to break the law.
Example: Suppose an undercover police officer persistently pressures a person to sell drugs, even though the person has no history of drug dealing. If the individual eventually gives in to the pressure and sells the drugs, they may argue entrapment. However, if it is shown that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime, the entrapment defense will likely fail.
B. Statute of Limitations
The statute of limitations sets a time limit on how long after a crime occurs the state can prosecute the individual responsible. Once this period has expired, the defendant cannot be charged with that crime.
Example: If a minor theft was committed ten years ago, and the statute of limitations for theft is five years, then the defendant cannot be prosecuted after that period has elapsed. However, serious offenses like murder often have no statute of limitations, meaning that prosecution can occur at any time.
Case Study: People v. Goetz (Self-Defense Case)
To conclude our discussion, let's examine the case of People v. Goetz, which offers an important look into the complexities of self-defense claims.
Case Overview: Bernard Goetz shot four young men on a New York subway, claiming that he acted in self-defense. Goetz believed the men were about to rob him, as they approached and asked for money. He fired multiple shots, seriously injuring them. The main issue in this case was whether Goetz's belief that he was in imminent danger was objectively reasonable. Goetz argued that he had been mugged previously and was genuinely fearful for his life.
Legal Analysis: The court had to evaluate whether Goetz's belief was reasonable under the circumstances. Since the young men did not have weapons and had not explicitly threatened him with violence, the court analyzed whether Goetz's actions were warranted given the context. The subjective fear Goetz experienced was weighed against whether an average person in his situation would have felt similarly threatened.
Outcome: Goetz was acquitted of attempted murder but was found guilty of illegal possession of a firearm. This outcome demonstrates the intricacies involved in assessing self-defense—especially when the threat is not overt or immediate. The case illustrates how courts balance subjective perceptions of danger against what is considered objectively reasonable.
Summary
In this lecture, we explored the various defenses available in criminal law. Justification defenses, like self-defense, are employed when the defendant’s actions are deemed necessary under the circumstances. Excuse defenses, such as insanity or duress, acknowledge the wrongfulness of the act but argue that the defendant should not be held fully liable due to specific conditions. Procedural defenses like entrapment and statute of limitations focus on ensuring the fairness of the criminal process itself. Understanding these defenses is crucial for evaluating the context in which criminal acts occur and the appropriate legal responses.
In our next session, we will examine the various procedural elements of criminal trials, including evidence admissibility and the rights of the accused. Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to our continued exploration of criminal law.