465:) is the equivalent of necessity in Denmark and Norway. It is considered related to but separate from self-defence. Common legal examples of necessity includes: breaking windows and other objects in order to escape a fire, commandeering a vehicle to serve as an emergency ambulance, ignoring traffic rules while rushing a dying patient to a hospital, and even killing a person who poses an immediate threat to several other people not including yourself. In the last case self-defense laws are not enough, but the case is covered by
254:
366:
ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) they themselves did not create the danger they sought to avoid. Thus, with the "drunk driver" example cited above, the necessity defense will not be recognized if the defendant drove further than was reasonably necessary to get away from the kidnapper, or if some other reasonable alternative was available to them.
365:
recognize this defense, but only under limited circumstances. Generally, the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence) that (a) the harm they sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct they are charged with; (b) they had no reasonable alternative; (c) they
391:
These examples have the common feature of individuals intentionally breaking the law because they believe it to be urgently necessary to protect others from harm, but some states distinguish between a response to a crisis arising from an entirely natural cause (an inanimate force of nature), e.g. a
548:
office in Tucson, where they chanted "keep
America's tax dollars out of El Salvador," splashed simulated blood on the counters, walls, and carpeting, and generally obstructed the office's operation. The court ruled that the elements of necessity did not exist in this case.
736:
725:
499:
Necessity is a defence per the Penal Code. This requires lack of criminal intent, good faith (due care and attention), and the goal of preventing harm. The harm must be sufficiently serious and imminent to justify or excuse the act.
404:
Further, some states apply a test of proportionality, where the defense would only be allowed where the degree of harm actually caused was a reasonably proportionate response to the degree of harm threatened. This is a legal form of
400:
cannot use necessity as a defense if they steal food. The existence of welfare benefits and strategies other than self-help defeat the claim of an urgent necessity that cannot be avoided in any way other than by breaking the law.
341:. As a matter of political expediency, states usually allow some classes of person to be excused from liability when they are engaged in socially useful functions but intentionally cause injury, loss or damage.
428:
In Canada, necessity is recognized as a defence for crimes committed in urgent situations of clear and imminent peril in which the accused has no safe or legal way out of the situation.
509:
514:
In two separate cases in 2020, climate activists were not convicted of trespassing and damaging property after holding unauthorized demonstrations in
678:
384:
safe from harm. If a fire or flood is threatening to spread out of control, it may be reasonably necessary to destroy other property to form a
445:
The first and second element are evaluated on the modified objective standard. The third element is evaluated on a purely objective standard:
661:
774:
284:
900:
337:
to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as
811:
799:
17:
277:
590:
allows any law to be broken to save a life, except laws against murder, adultery/incest and blasphemy/idolatry.
615:
130:
306:
562:
488:
826:"The demise of the political necessity defense: indirect civil disobedience and United States v. Schoon"
825:
895:
558:
270:
43:
749:
538:
Necessity as a defense to criminal acts conducted to meet political ends was rejected in the case of
487:
Except for a few statutory exemptions and in some medical cases there is no corresponding defense in
423:
406:
392:
fire from a lightning strike or rain from a storm, and a response to an entirely human crisis. Thus,
90:
545:
482:
359:
571:
case in
Vermont resulted in activists being acquitted of charges after using a necessity defense.
713:
540:
120:
115:
877:
145:
39:
674:
350:
388:, or to trespass on land to throw up mounds of earth to prevent the water from spreading.
95:
530:
Necessity is a possible defense per the
Criminal Code and the Administrative Penalty Act.
344:
For example, drunk drivers might contend that they drove their car to get away from being
8:
326:
853:
651:
United States v. Oakland
Cannabis Buyer's Cooperative. Whatever Happened to Federalism?
178:
100:
35:
845:
140:
56:
690:
837:
150:
105:
85:
75:
31:
515:
610:
318:
30:
This article is about the concept in criminal law. For the concept in tort, see
871:
639:
586:
519:
234:
80:
889:
849:
374:
775:"Credit Suisse unterliegt - Genfer Kantonsgericht gibt Klimaaktivist Recht"
629:
The
Defense of Necessity Considered from the Legal and Moral Points of View
377:
370:
362:
338:
298:
229:
214:
204:
199:
174:
544:. In that case, 30 people, including appellants, gained admittance to the
568:
446:
47:
857:
653:(2002) Vol. 95, No. 1 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 121.
599:
385:
355:
345:
258:
219:
188:
155:
64:
644:
The Case of the
Speluncean Explorers: A Fiftieth Anniversary Symposium
381:
314:
224:
841:
253:
209:
393:
322:
125:
518:
branches due to pleading a necessity defense in the face of a
473:
can only be invoked though when no other option is available.
397:
330:
110:
310:
800:
Article 24 of the
Criminal Code of the Republic of China
703:
See Re A (Conjoined Twins: Surgical
Separation) Fam 147
38:. For that in constitutional and international law, see
823:
441:
Proportionality between harm inflicted and harm avoided
510:
887:
658:The Compulsion Element in a Defence of Necessity
836:(1), University of California Press: 351–385,
525:
431:Three requirements for defence of necessity:
278:
435:Urgent situation of imminent peril or danger
638:, (1949) Vol. 62, No. 4 Harvard Law Review
396:who lack the financial means to feed their
737:Section 52 of the Penal Code of Singapore.
726:Section 81 of the Penal Code of Singapore.
285:
271:
412:
812:Article 13 of Administrative Penalty Act
750:"In Defence of Green Civil Disobedience"
631:, (1999) Vol. 48 Duke Law Journal, 975.
14:
888:
747:
646:, (1999) 12 Harvard Law Review 1834.
552:
452:
640:The Case of the Speluncean Explorers
636:The Case of the Speluncean Explorers
779:Schweizer Radio und Fernsehen (SRF)
574:
321:argue that they should not be held
309:or an exculpation for breaking the
24:
748:Stucki, Saskia (30 October 2020).
34:. For that in the law of war, see
25:
912:
716:14 QBD 273 and R v Howe 1 AC 417
824:Cavallaro, James L. Jr. (1993),
533:
380:have a general duty to keep the
252:
863:
817:
805:
438:No reasonable legal alternative
901:Legal doctrines and principles
793:
767:
741:
730:
719:
706:
697:
683:
668:
616:Opinio juris sive necessitatis
593:
503:
476:
13:
1:
621:
584:In Judaism, the principle of
781:(in German). 14 October 2020
563:Necessity defense (New York)
494:
42:. For logical meanings, see
7:
691:"Straffeloven av 2005 § 17"
604:
10:
917:
662:Compulsion & Necessity
597:
579:
559:Necessity defense (Kansas)
556:
526:Taiwan (Republic of China)
507:
480:
421:
333:because their conduct was
86:Mental disorder (Insanity)
44:Necessary (disambiguation)
29:
424:Necessity in Canadian law
417:
369:For another example, the
305:may be either a possible
91:Diminished responsibility
483:Necessity in English law
317:seeking to rely on this
714:R v Dudley and Stephens
541:United States v. Schoon
413:Specific jurisdictions
880: (July 29, 1991).
830:California Law Review
557:Further information:
457:Emergency law/right (
407:cost–benefit analysis
40:Doctrine of necessity
878:939 F2d 826
553:In specific states
453:Denmark and Norway
351:North by Northwest
36:Military necessity
896:Criminal defenses
520:climate emergency
301:of many nations,
295:
294:
57:Criminal defenses
18:Necessity defense
16:(Redirected from
908:
881:
875:
867:
861:
860:
821:
815:
809:
803:
797:
791:
790:
788:
786:
771:
765:
764:
762:
760:
745:
739:
734:
728:
723:
717:
710:
704:
701:
695:
694:
687:
681:
672:
575:In religious law
287:
280:
273:
257:
256:
171:
151:False confession
76:Actual innocence
53:
52:
32:Necessity (tort)
27:Criminal defense
21:
916:
915:
911:
910:
909:
907:
906:
905:
886:
885:
884:
869:
868:
864:
842:10.2307/3480788
822:
818:
810:
806:
798:
794:
784:
782:
773:
772:
768:
758:
756:
754:Verfassungsblog
746:
742:
735:
731:
724:
720:
711:
707:
702:
698:
689:
688:
684:
679:Retsinformation
673:
669:
634:Fuller, Lon L.
624:
611:Competing harms
607:
602:
596:
582:
577:
565:
555:
536:
528:
512:
506:
497:
485:
479:
455:
426:
420:
415:
291:
251:
239:
167:
160:
51:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
914:
904:
903:
898:
883:
882:
872:U.S. v. Schoon
862:
816:
804:
792:
766:
740:
729:
718:
705:
696:
682:
666:
665:
664:
654:
647:
632:
623:
620:
619:
618:
613:
606:
603:
595:
592:
587:pikuach nefesh
581:
578:
576:
573:
554:
551:
535:
532:
527:
524:
508:Main article:
505:
502:
496:
493:
481:Main article:
478:
475:
454:
451:
449:, 2001 SCC 1.
443:
442:
439:
436:
422:Main article:
419:
416:
414:
411:
293:
292:
290:
289:
282:
275:
267:
264:
263:
262:
261:
259:Law portal
246:
245:
241:
240:
238:
237:
232:
227:
222:
217:
212:
207:
202:
196:
193:
192:
184:
183:
182:
181:
172:
162:
161:
159:
158:
153:
148:
143:
138:
133:
128:
123:
118:
113:
108:
103:
98:
93:
88:
83:
78:
72:
69:
68:
60:
59:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
913:
902:
899:
897:
894:
893:
891:
879:
874:
873:
866:
859:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
820:
813:
808:
801:
796:
780:
776:
770:
755:
751:
744:
738:
733:
727:
722:
715:
709:
700:
692:
686:
680:
676:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
652:
648:
645:
641:
637:
633:
630:
626:
625:
617:
614:
612:
609:
608:
601:
591:
589:
588:
572:
570:
564:
560:
550:
547:
543:
542:
534:United States
531:
523:
521:
517:
516:Crédit Suisse
511:
501:
492:
490:
484:
474:
472:
468:
464:
460:
450:
448:
440:
437:
434:
433:
432:
429:
425:
410:
408:
402:
399:
395:
389:
387:
383:
379:
378:organizations
376:
375:civil defence
372:
371:fire services
367:
364:
363:jurisdictions
361:
357:
353:
352:
347:
342:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
307:justification
304:
300:
288:
283:
281:
276:
274:
269:
268:
266:
265:
260:
255:
250:
249:
248:
247:
243:
242:
236:
233:
231:
228:
226:
223:
221:
218:
216:
213:
211:
208:
206:
203:
201:
198:
197:
195:
194:
190:
186:
185:
180:
176:
173:
170:
166:
165:
164:
163:
157:
154:
152:
149:
147:
144:
142:
139:
137:
134:
132:
129:
127:
124:
122:
119:
117:
114:
112:
109:
107:
104:
102:
99:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
84:
82:
79:
77:
74:
73:
71:
70:
66:
62:
61:
58:
55:
54:
49:
45:
41:
37:
33:
19:
870:
865:
833:
829:
819:
807:
795:
783:. Retrieved
778:
769:
757:. Retrieved
753:
743:
732:
721:
708:
699:
685:
675:Straffeloven
670:
657:
650:
643:
635:
628:
585:
583:
566:
539:
537:
529:
513:
498:
491:for murder.
486:
470:
466:
462:
458:
456:
444:
430:
427:
403:
390:
368:
349:
343:
339:self defense
334:
302:
299:criminal law
296:
175:Criminal law
168:
146:Self-defense
135:
96:Intoxication
63:Part of the
656:Travis, M.
594:Catholicism
569:Winooski 44
504:Switzerland
489:English law
477:English law
447:R v Latimer
141:Provocation
48:Modal logic
890:Categories
785:31 October
759:31 October
627:Christie,
622:References
600:Canon 1324
598:See also:
386:fire break
373:and other
356:common law
325:for their
315:Defendants
189:common law
156:Entrapment
106:Automatism
65:common law
850:0008-1221
495:Singapore
382:community
360:civil law
354:). Most
346:kidnapped
335:necessary
303:necessity
179:procedure
136:Necessity
649:Herman,
605:See also
398:children
235:Evidence
215:Property
205:Contract
200:Criminal
169:See also
81:Immunity
858:3480788
660:(2000)
580:Judaism
463:nødrett
394:parents
327:actions
319:defense
297:In the
244:Portals
230:Estates
121:Mistake
116:Consent
101:Infancy
876:,
856:
848:
471:Nødret
467:nødret
459:nødret
418:Canada
323:liable
225:Trusts
187:Other
126:Duress
67:series
854:JSTOR
348:(cf.
331:crime
329:as a
220:wills
191:areas
111:Alibi
846:ISSN
787:2020
761:2020
712:See
642:and
567:The
561:and
358:and
210:Tort
177:and
46:and
838:doi
677:pĂĄ
546:IRS
311:law
131:Age
892::
852:,
844:,
834:81
832:,
828:,
777:.
752:.
522:.
469:.
461:,
409:.
313:.
840::
814:.
802:.
789:.
763:.
693:.
286:e
279:t
272:v
50:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.