As criminal justice students, you’ll come across various defenses that stand as cornerstones in the realm of criminal law. One such defense is the Choice of Evils Justification, a principle grounded in moral philosophy and real-world pragmatism. It essentially posits that in certain situations, committing a lesser “evil” to prevent a greater one is justifiable.
Understanding the Theoretical Framework
The Lesser of Two Evils
The defense known as the “lesser of two evils” operates on a fundamental ethical premise: when faced with two unfavorable options, the defendant deliberately chose the course of action that would result in less harm or a lesser “evil.” This concept is steeped in moral decision-making and aims to carve out legal space for those extraordinary circumstances where the only available choices are bad ones. In such situations, traditional notions of guilt and innocence become complicated, requiring the legal system to consider not just the act itself, but also the context in which it occurred and the motivation behind it.
By invoking the “lesser of two evils” defense, the defendant essentially acknowledges wrongdoing but argues that the alternative would have resulted in even greater harm. In this way, the defense provides a nuanced avenue for evaluating moral dilemmas within the framework of the law, allowing for the potential exoneration of individuals who, despite violating the letter of the law, may well have acted in the most ethically responsible manner available to them given their circumstances.
Model Penal Code Insight
The Model Penal Code (MPC) provides a comprehensive framework for the “Choice of Evils” or “Necessity” defense, aiming to codify a common-sense approach to real-world dilemmas in criminal law. According to Section 3.02 of the MPC, conduct believed by the actor to be essential for avoiding greater harm or evil is justifiable provided that “the harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged.” This provision tries to encapsulate the moral and ethical quandaries people might find themselves in, where committing a lesser offense could prevent a greater catastrophe.
The MPC’s articulation serves as a standard reference for this defense but it’s crucial to note that the application of this principle can vary considerably from one jurisdiction to another. In some states, for instance, the Choice of Evils defense may be codified in statutory law, closely following the MPC’s guidelines. In others, the doctrine may exist as a common law principle that has evolved through court decisions over time. This divergence in application means that the defense could lead to a complete acquittal in some jurisdictions, while only mitigating the severity of the offense in others.
The significance of the MPC’s formulation lies in its attempt to balance individual actions against the collective norms of legality and morality. By stipulating that the harm or evil avoided must be greater than the one prevented by the law defining the offense, the MPC tries to harmonize the sometimes conflicting demands of social necessity and legal obligation. In doing so, it acknowledges that laws, while designed to prevent harm, may not cover every possible scenario and that exceptions might be not only possible but morally and socially desirable.
Practical Applications and Limitations
Examples of Use
A textbook example involves destroying property to contain a potentially catastrophic fire. Here, the lesser evil—destruction of property—prevents the greater evil, which is the uncontrollable spread of fire.
Statutory Versus Common Law
Jurisdictions may define the Choice of Evils Justification through statutes or retain it as a common law doctrine. This flexibility means that in some states, it could serve as a perfect defense leading to acquittal, while in others, it may only mitigate the severity of the offense.
Two Fundamental Requirements
For the “Choice of Evils” or “Necessity” defense to be invoked effectively, it’s crucial to satisfy two fundamental criteria, which could be thought of as the cornerstones of this legal justification. These conditions serve as the operational guidelines that courts, attorneys, and law enforcement agencies use to assess the validity of invoking this defense.
The first criterion stipulates that the conduct in question must have been necessary as an “emergency measure” to prevent an imminent public or private injury. This is a critical point. The idea of “necessity” in this context demands an objective evaluation. The threat or harm must be immediate and not theoretical, hypothetical, or remote. In essence, the situation should be such that any reasonable person, when placed under those exact circumstances, would conclude that there was no alternative but to commit the lesser evil to prevent a greater harm. Moreover, the harm must be imminent, meaning it is about to occur and waiting any longer would make the action ineffective as a preventative measure.
The second criterion requires that the urgency to avoid the said injury must outweigh, by ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm that the law seeks to prevent by criminalizing the act. This is often a nuanced judgment, reliant on a complex calculus that aims to weigh different types of harm against each other. In other words, society, through the legal system, must find your act more reasonable under the circumstances than adherence to the strict letter of the law that would otherwise define your act as a crime. This balancing act leans heavily on societal norms and values, aiming to reach a decision that reflects the collective moral compass of the community.
Both these criteria must coalesce for the “Choice of Evils” defense to be valid. If one of these conditions is absent, the defense will likely fail. Furthermore, if the individual invoking the defense was reckless or negligent in creating the circumstances requiring the “choice between evils,” then the defense becomes invalid. Essentially, these criteria function as a rigorous ethical and legal filter, aimed at ensuring that this defense is applied only in scenarios where it is morally and socially justified.
Concluding Remarks
The Choice of Evils Justification is a complex yet essential element of criminal law that you’ll need to grasp fully as you prepare for a career in criminal justice. Whether you aim to become a prosecutor, defense attorney, or a legal analyst, understanding the moral and legal implications of this defense will equip you with the analytical tools needed for a nuanced approach to justice.
Modification History File Created: 07/13/2018 Last Modified: 09/13/2022
This work is licensed under an Open Educational Resource-Quality Master Source (OER-QMS) License.
