An Introduction to Criminal Defenses

Here are some frequent defenses used by criminal defendants.

The prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict a criminal defendant. Of course, the defendant is given the chance to defend himself. There are several defenses available, ranging from “I didn’t do it” to “I did it, but it was in self-defense” and beyond. Read on to learn more about some typical defenses.

I did not do it.

Defendants often assert that they did not perform the claimed behavior in issue. They may claim that the crime was committed by someone else or that no crime was committed in the first place. A defense attorney claiming that no crime occurred may say that witnesses’ accounts of events are false or that the client’s conduct did not fulfill all of the elements of the charge.

The presumption of innocence and alibi are two ideas under the “didn’t do it” line of defense.

What Role Does the Presumption of Innocence Play?

All persons accused of a crime are legally considered to be innocent until they are convicted, whether by trial or plea. This presumption indicates that the prosecution, rather than the defendant, must persuade the jury of the defendant’s guilt. A defendant may merely stay quiet and submit no witnesses, arguing that the prosecution has failed to establish its case. In reality, however, defense counsel often submit their own witnesses to dispute the government’s evidence.

The prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” to the fact-finder. This high standard of evidence necessitates that the jury (or, in certain situations, the judge) be convinced that the defendant is guilty. With such a heavy burden on the prosecution, defense counsel often convey upon jurors that just believing the defendant did the crime isn’t enough to convict.

What Exactly Is an Alibi?

Evidence that the defendant was someplace other than the location of the crime at the time of the offense constitutes an alibi defense. Assume Jones is charged with conducting a burglary on Hampton Street at midnight on September 14. A friend’s testimony that he and Jones were in the movie theater from 11:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. on the 14th might be used as alibi proof. The movie tickets and a credit card statement proving that Jones bought them just before 11:00 p.m. would be more alibi proof.

But the Defendant Did It…

Even though the prosecution demonstrated that the prisoner did, without a doubt, perform the claimed offense, an acquittal is sometimes the consequence. There are several “excuse” arguments; read on for a few examples.

When Is Self-Defense Necessary?

Those accused of violent crimes such as battery, assault, or murder often claim self-defense. The defendant acknowledges to using violence, but says it was justified by the other person’s threatening or aggressive behavior. The following are often the central considerations in self-defense cases:

Who was the perpetrator?
Was the defendant’s belief in the need of self-defense reasonable?
If so, was the defendant’s use of force likewise reasonable?

The concept that individuals should be able to defend themselves underpins self-defense. This implies, in part, that someone does not have to wait until they are actually hit before acting in self-defense. Whatever the circumstances, any force used by the potential defendant must be proportionate under the circumstances.

Do Defendants Frequently Rely on the Insanity Defense?

The insanity defense is primarily founded on the premise that punishment is only justifiable when defendants are capable of managing their actions and comprehending that what they have done is unlawful. The insanity defense protects those who are unable to function normally from criminal prosecution.

The insanity defense is a very complicated subject, with several academic publications dedicated solely to discussing its subtleties. Here are a few key topics of interest:

Despite common belief, defendants seldom submit pleas of “not guilty by reason of insanity.” When they do, they often struggle to prove it. (Insanity is simply one exception to the general rule that the prosecution must establish all aspects of a case beyond a reasonable doubt while the defendant is not required to show anything.)
Because neither the legal system nor mental health specialists can agree on a single definition of insanity in the context of criminal law, many definitions are in use. The “M’Naghten rule,” which defines insanity as the inability to discern between good and wrong, is one of the most frequent definitions. Another popular criteria is “irresistible urge,” which applies to someone who knows an act is bad but is unable to resist performing it due to mental illness.
Defendants who are found not guilty due to insanity are not immediately released. They are often housed in mental institutes. These defendants may spend more time in a mental hospital than they would in jail if convicted.
An insanity defense is often based on the testimony of psychiatrists or psychologists who examine the defendant, his or her background, and the circumstances of the case. Courts appoint mental health practitioners at the cost of the government to help low-income defendants who cannot afford to pay their own.

Is “Under the Influence” Ever an Acceptable Defense?

Defendants who commit crimes while under the influence of drugs or alcohol may claim that their mental functioning was damaged to the point that they could not be held responsible for their acts. In general, voluntary drunkenness does not justify criminal behavior. (Where relevant, involuntary drunkenness tends to justify greater conduct.) The premise is that defendants are aware (or should be aware) of how alcohol and drugs impact functioning and should not be excused simply because they choose to get inebriated.

This basic norm is not followed in all states: A defendant accused of a felony requiring “particular purpose” may allege that he or she was too intoxicated or high to develop such intent. (In general, specific purpose refers to a circumstance in which the defendant intends the particular effects of an act in addition to the conduct itself.) However, specific purpose may only be a partial defense. For example, it might result in an acquittal for assault with particular intent to kill but a conviction for assault with a lethal weapon, which does not usually need specific intent.

What Is the Meaning of “Entrapment”?

Entrapment happens when the government leads a person to commit a crime that the individual would not have done otherwise. Law enforcement officials, on the other hand, might give opportunity for defendants to conduct crimes without committing entrapment. Entrapment, like the other defenses mentioned above, is often difficult to show.