NCJ Number
114995
Journal
Wayne Law Review Volume: 33 Issue: 4 Dated: (Summer 1987) Pages: 1289-1342
Date Published
1987
Length
54 pages
Annotation
Making distinctions between a justification and an excuse is both feasible and important to criminal law, although the efforts to distinguish the two concepts have been criticized on several grounds.
Abstract
A justification focuses on the conduct, presupposing the violation of a legal norm but providing that this violation was the right action under the circumstances. Commonly recognized justifications include self-defense, lesser evils, consent, and law enforcement. In contrast, an excuse focuses on the blame that may be fairly attributed to the actor, presupposing both the violation and its unjustified nature. Common excuses are duress, necessity, involuntary intoxication, unavoidable mistake of law, and insanity. Criticisms of the distinction and its consequences focus on the feasibility of making clear distinctions, the problem of mistakes made in good faith, and the implications for the rights of others. However, making distinctions are clearly possible, using the function rather than the content of the violated norms as the decisive distinguishing characteristic. In addition, the issue of mistake relates to the actor's intent. Finally, once the content of justifications is understood and the issue of mistake is determined, the consequences of making a justificatory claim follow from the nature of that claim and should, therefore, be reflected in the criminal law. 161 footnotes.