The Four Negoitions Of Justification Defense For Criminal Culpability

In a criminal trial, a defendant has a choice of several justification defenses, of which the most common one is that they did not do anything. The four most important “justification defenses” for criminal culpability are duress, self-defense, necessity, and entrapment. I would like to discuss duress, self-defense, and necessity.

The defense of duress can arise when a wrongful threat or use of physical force compels the defendant or any other reasonable person to perform an act which that person would not perform under normal circumstances (Gaines and Miller 91). There are four conditions that must be met when a defendant wants to use the defense of duress. The first condition depends on whether or not the defendant faced an immediate threat of death or grave bodily harm. Next, there was no opportunity for the

Self-defense is based on the premise that people should be permitted to make sure that they are safe (“Defenses to Criminal Charges”). It is the justifiable use of force in order to protect one’s self, property or dwelling or in the prevention of a crime. The two most important criteria for self-defense are deadly force and the duty to retreat (Gaines and Miller 92). If the defendant reasonably believed that there was an imminent threat of harm or death and there was no choice other than using deadly force, then self-defense can be used as a defense. When a deadly force is used in a self-defense circumstance, the defendant has to prove that he or she looked for ways to retreat and refrain from using deadly force. The defendant has to show that he or she used deadly force only when they believed that they had no other option. There are two exceptions to the duty to retreat rule. First, if a defendant believes that it is not safe for him or her to retreat, then they need not retreat at all. Secondly, it is not necessary for the defendant to retreat if he or she is attacked in their own