Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Justification and excuse are different defenses in a United States criminal case. [ 1 ] : 513 Both defenses admit that the defendant committed an act proscribed by law. [ 1 ] : 513 The proscribed act has justification if the act had positive effects that outweigh its negative effects, or is not wrong or blameworthy.
Justification and excuse are different defenses in a criminal case (See Justification and excuse). [1] Exculpation is a related concept which reduces or extinguishes a person's culpability , such as their liability to pay compensation to the victim of a tort in the civil law .
In an affirmative defense, the defendant may concede that they committed the alleged acts, but they prove other facts which, under the law, either justify or excuse their otherwise wrongful actions, or otherwise overcomes the plaintiff's claim. In criminal law, an affirmative defense is sometimes called a justification or excuse defense. [4]
In contrast, an excuse is a defense that recognizes a crime was committed, but that for the defendant, although committing a socially undesirable crime, conviction and punishment would be morally inappropriate because of an extenuating personal inadequacy, such as mental defect, lack of mental capacity, sufficient age, intense fear of death ...
The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to a psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act.
Instead the court ruled that diminished responsibility required the existence of an abnormality of mind which had the effect that the accused's ability to determine or control his actings was substantially impaired. However, the Court excluded from the scope of the plea: any condition brought on by the consumption of drink or drugs, and
Mistake of law is a legal principle referring to one or more errors that were made by a person in understanding how the applicable law applied to their past activity that is under analysis by a court. In jurisdictions that use the term, it is differentiated from mistake of fact. There is a principle of law that "ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Even in those jurisdictions without formal "actual innocence" provisions in their post-conviction statutes, actual innocence can have a procedural effect, in that it will excuse procedural default and permit the filing of a successor collateral relief petition. This is based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Schlup v.