Defences

When considering defences it can be useful to distinguish between justifications and excuses. A claim of justification is essentially an assertion that the act committed was permissible in all the circumstances. It need not necessarily be the most morally appropriate act, but it need be an act that is permitted by the law. A justification does not deny that the victim was wronged but states that there were countervailing circumstances which made that conduct justifiable. A common example of justification is acting in self-defence against an attack. Although some may argue that in the face of an attack the morally correct thing to do is ‘to turn the other cheek’; the law sees it as permissible to respond with the reasonable degree of force necessary to repel the attack. This could be on the ground that there has been a net gain for society in repelling the attack, or on the basis of rights: that the attacker has forfeited his right not to be injured by attacking someone. A claim of excuse, on the other hand, admits that the act was not justifiable but seeks to argue that in the circumstances the defendant does not deserve the blame attached to a criminal conviction, that the acts were understandable and excusable. Paul Robinson has neatly summarized the distinction between justifications and excuses: ‘acts are justified, actors are excused’.