The legal concept of affirmative defense has been largely recognized in criminal law since the 16th century. The premise behind affirmative defense dates back even further to the Roman Civil Law, where it was implemented as a way to protect a defendant from a victim's excesses while preserving a sense of justice. Affirmative defense is essentially a plea in which the defendant admits to committing the crime, but claims an excuse or legal defense that might justify their actions. In the U.S. this type of defense has evolved over time, becoming more common over time as the courts have found it an effective way to accommodate certain instances in which the circumstances surrounding a crime warrant an exemption from criminal liability. This has typically been used in cases that involve a lack of intent on the part of the defendant, such as in circumstances where a person acted in self-defense or under duress. Today, affirmative defense is part of the legal landscape in many criminal proceedings, providing an opportunity for defendants to explain the circumstances surrounding their actions and argue for a reduction in criminal liability.
Affirmative defenses are essential to criminal law and due process as they provide a basis for a defendant to negate liability for a criminal act. Key terms related to affirmative defense include self-defense, alibi, entrapment, insanity defense, right of necessity, intoxication, plea, burden of proof, acceptance, mistake, justification, and excuse. Self-defense is a legally recognized justification for the use of reasonable force against another when faced with the threat of harm. An alibi is the plea of being in a different place at the time of the alleged action to avoid criminal responsibility. Entrapment is an illegal act by a government agent (or their agent) deliberately inducing or causing an individual to commit a criminal act that they would not have otherwise done. The Insanity Defense holds that a defendant cannot be held accountable or liable for their actions if they were in a state of mind that did not allow them to appreciate the wrongfulness of their actions. The right of necessity applies when a defendant must choose between two rights, one of which is criminal, in order to prevent greater harm. Intoxication is a defense to criminal liability if the defendant could not understand their criminal conduct or control their actions. Pleas are statements of intention, either guilty or not guilty, made to the court. The burden of proof is the obligation to prove certain facts in court. Acceptance occurs when a court agrees to hear the affirmative defense presented. Mistake is when the individual who committed the crime believed they had legal authority to do so. Justification is a defense that emphasizes that the action taken was necessary or proper. Lastly, excuse is a defense that acknowledges the crime was committed, but seeks mitigation of the damages caused.
In criminal law, there are three common types of affirmative defenses:
- Self-defense
When individuals use reasonable force necessary to protect themselves or others around them.
A successful self defense affirmative defense in criminal law requires evidence of a reasonable amount of force that is used only in response to unlawful force or threatened use of force by the alleged victim. The accused must have an honest and genuine belief that they were in imminent danger of death or serious injury, that the force used was necessary to prevent said danger, and that there was no reasonable alternative to using force. The amount of force used should be proportionate to the perceived threat that the accused reasonably believed existed at the time of the incident.
- Necessity
When an act that would otherwise be criminal is deemed to result from a reasonable necessity to protect the actor or someone else from harm.
A successful necessity affirmative defense in criminal law typically requires legal proof of four elements: (1) that the criminal act was done to prevent an immediate and serious harm, (2) that there was no reasonable legal alternative other than to violate the law, (3) that the harm that would have resulted from failing to act was greater than the harm manually inflicted by the offense, and (4) that the defendant did not intend to violate the law or create risk of harm to others. The defendant must also demonstrate that they acted in good faith, taking into account all relevant factors and circumstances. When properly brought forward, a necessity defense is an effective form of mitigating the legal consequences of an offense.
- Duress
When an individual is forced to act by threats of bodily harm from another person.
Duress is a potentially successful affirmative defense if the defendant can show that they were compelled to commit their crime due to an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. The defendant must also demonstrate that they had no reasonable opportunity to avoid committing the crime, that they reasonably believed their life was in immediate danger, and that the wrongful act was proportionate to the threat made. Additionally, the defense may not be available if the defendant willingly placed themselves into the situation that allowed the threat to exist.
These affirmative defenses may reduce or completely exonerate liability for criminal acts, allowing those accused of criminal activity to make their case that their actions were justified.
If you find yourself being unjustly accused of a crime in southwest Florida and believe you have an affirmative defense, Sal Bazaz is a knowledgeable and experienced attorney who is ready to take on your case. He understands the anxiety and struggle of dealing with a difficult legal situation and offers free consultations to those who contact him. Sal Bazaz has a 20-year successful track record in criminal defense. Contact Sal Bazaz now to discuss your case and determine the best way to pursue justice.