Legal And Factual Defenses In Criminal Law: An Overview ✓ Solved

Legal and Factual Defenses in Criminal Law: An Overview

The assignment requires a discussion of defenses used in criminal cases, specifically focusing on the two main categories: factual defenses and legal defenses. Factual defenses involve contesting the facts of the case, such as offering an alibi, suggesting mistaken identity, or introducing doubt about the defendant's involvement (Schmalleger & Hall, 2017). In contrast, legal defenses involve justifying or excusing the defendant's actions, asserting that the act was permissible under the circumstances or that the defendant lacked the mental capacity to be liable (Schmalleger & Hall, 2017). These legal defenses are further divided into affirmative defenses, which admit to the act but justify or excuse it.

Within the legal defenses, justification defenses argue that the act was necessary or right, such as self-defense, to prevent greater harm (Greenwalt, 1998). An example of a justification defense is when a defendant claims they acted to protect themselves or others from imminent danger. Excuse defenses, on the other hand, acknowledge wrongful conduct but argue that the defendant lacked the mental capacity or was under extraordinary circumstances, such as insanity or duress (Berman, 2003). A well-known example of an excuse is the gay panic defense, historically used to justify violent reactions to perceived homosexual advances, which has been considered controversial and is rarely successful today. The case of People v. Schmitz (1998) exemplifies this defense, where the defendant claimed emotional distress caused by the victim led to homicide, resulting in a conviction of second-degree murder instead of first-degree.

Furthermore, the discussion extends to the concept of defenses based on circumstances such as the "affluence defense," which highlights how wealth can influence legal outcomes. A prominent example is the Operation Varsity Blues scandal, where wealthy parents, including Felicity Huffman, engaged in fraudulent practices, such as cheating on standardized tests to secure college admissions (Hawkins, 2019). Huffman's case resulted in a relatively lenient sentence, reflecting the influence of wealth and privilege on the justice system. This phenomena demonstrates how economic power can serve as a form of defense or mitigation in criminal proceedings, often resulting in disparities in sentencing outcomes (Geiger, 2019). In wider context, this raises concerns about social justice and equality before the law, as affluent individuals may exploit their resources to escape harsher penalties.

Overall, understanding the distinctions between factual and legal defenses enhances comprehension of criminal law and its application. Factual defenses challenge the evidentiary basis of the prosecution's case, while legal defenses provide moral or legal justification or excuse for conduct. The evolving nature of defenses like the gay panic and affluence defenses also reflect society’s shifting values and the legal system’s response to social issues. Recognizing these defenses' complexities and implications is essential for a nuanced understanding of criminal justice and legal theory.

References

• Berman, M. N. (2003). Justification and excuse, law, and morality. University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, 53(1), 1-77.
• Geiger, D. (2019). Felicity Huffman's 14-day jail sentence shows just how much privilege plays into criminal sentencing. Journal of College Admission, 244, 15–17.
• Greenwalt, K. (1998). Justifications, excuses, and a model penal code for democratic societies. Criminal Justice Ethics, 17(1), 14.
• Hawkins, D. (2019). Operation varsity blues: Where we are now. Journal of College Admission, 244, 15–17.
• Russo, O. T. (2019). How to get away with murder: The “gay panic” defense. Touro Law Review, 35(2), 811–837.
• Schmalleger, F., & Hall, D. E. (2017). Criminal law today. Pearson.
• People v. Schmitz, 586 N.W.2d 766 (Mich. 1998).
• Victor, D. (2018). Ethan Couch, 'Affluenza Teen' who killed 4 while driving drunk, is freed.