In criminal law crimes are clearly defined. For some crimes, proof of the criminal act is necessary, while for others, proof of the perpetrator of the criminal act is necessary. According to the Criminal Law 1967, if an individual may have committed an illegal act but is not yet found guilty of legal violation due to a legally recognized justification for his action or is not legally responsible for his action. For example, the Neubauer & Fradella case, 2010. In this case, even if a person commits a crime, this demonstrates how he can still escape the crime he commits, all this thanks to legal defense in criminal proceedings. law law 1967. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayTo start a discussion, the purpose of this essay is to understand the extent to which criminal law provides for the general defense of necessity towards criminal liability. The importance of having a criminal justice system is to provide guidelines for punishing the person who committed the crime, so as to preserve social order in a jurisdiction or country. Crime cannot be explained with just one definition as there are many examples of activities and behaviors that can be considered crimes such as murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery and the list goes on. The offender accused under the criminal law can be brought before the judge in court. Sometimes the offender is also brought before a jury for verdict. If the offender is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the offender will be sentenced by the judge based on the type of crime and the seriousness of the crime. However, those who are convicted are not always found guilty by the courts. Defendants often use defenses to prove they are not guilty. In the context of this question, the defense of necessity must be discussed first. What is the defense of necessity? The defense of necessity is defined as the circumstance in which a person commits a crime to avoid greater harm to himself or others that would result from the situation in which he or the other person finds himself involved. If the latter evil outweighs any evil act involved in breaking the law, it is arguable that the offender should have a defense of necessity. As stated by Oliver Goldsmith, “in all human institutions, a lesser evil can procure a greater good.” The statement in a sense supports the use of necessity as a defense in the English legal system. The clear truth that the offender has violated the rule in extenuating circumstances can also be a situation to limit or avoid punishment, however, necessity is no longer usually a defense to avoid being convicted. The term “necessity” has a special meaning from a legal point of view. A certain action is no longer necessary in the experience, in reality there is no different choice. There are usually several options, although one of the alternative ways is to meet your own death. A necessity in penal terms says that the evil of obeying the law is worse, in specific circumstances, than the evil of breaking it. In simpler words, the law must be broken to achieve the common good. The defense of necessity is controversial because in reality the defense of necessity usually cannot justify breaking the law. The judges are suspicious of it because they fear it might be subversive. But if the defense is recognized as valid, then it is only the letter of the law that is broken. If the need is a legal justification, the regulation itselfit is certainly no longer violated. Furthermore, it is stated that a positive purpose is not a defense. The question that arises is, “how is necessity distinct from this?” An individual acting out of necessity acts with an appropriate form of motivation. In short, no good Reason that does not fall under the doctrine of necessity is no longer a defense to a criminal charge, although it could also be a basis for limiting the sentence. The most important question is 'to what extent is the English legal system well known for the common defense of necessity?'. There are two points of view on the problem of the topic. The first point of view is that necessity is no longer considered a general defense, but is known as the definition of some particular crimes. Numerous laws diligently provide for the defense. For example, the Control of the inflation Act 1974, which allows the defense that the acts were carried out “in a situation essential to. avoid risk to the public.” However, parliament is not very imaginative Furthermore, the general function of the law in English law is silent in emergency situations, however it can also contain a wide range of words which could provide the courts with an excuse. to analyze in defense of necessity. If for example it is negligence or careless driving, necessity can still be taken into account. For example, in a situation where a man is accused of careless driving he admits that he should have driven on the wrong side of the road with the motive of avoiding a collision. It even seems accepted that the fact that an individual drives in an emergency situation is a factor to be considered in judging whether or not his act was beyond due diligence. For any criminal injury it is necessary that the damage is caused without legitimate justification, therefore, in a situation where a train accident and a passenger break into an unoccupied dwelling to call for help, it can also be argued that the damage to the door is not it's more of a crime because it has a legitimate excuse. In some other example, if such a passenger stole a bicycle to ask for help, his use of gas would not be deemed dishonest, so it would not be considered theft. If a law prohibits something from being done “intentionally,” the courts hold that the behavior is illegal only if done “without legitimate justification.” A more generous line would be "without any reasonable justification or excuse." On the other hand, the alternative view is that necessity or least evil is a usual defense in criminal law, similar to other defenses such as insanity, duress and minority. There is little common sense in stating that necessity can justify, where the crime occurs, the inclusion of the phrase “illegitimately” or similar expression in the definition, but not where there are no words on which to base the defense; as it would be an editorial error to include the phrase “illegal”. Furthermore, to say that necessity can constitute a “legitimate excuse” under the law presupposes that it is known by the law as a legitimate justification. If it is, there is no reason why its availability depends on the statutory stage. Since the unique views on necessity as a defense have been discussed, it is necessary to analyze particular cases or a wide range of situations to recognize the perfect use of necessity. One very well known area of ​​using necessity as a defense is in a murder case. Murder or manslaughter is really wrong. This is an area where the defense of necessity, if allowed using any opportunity, has a very narrow scope. In the layman's perception, necessity means killing another individual in self-defense. In the criminal concept, it contradicts. Since private defense overlaps with necessity, since the two do notthey are the same thing. Unlike necessity, private defense does not imply any balancing of values. Not only can one person kill in self-defense, but they can kill any number of people in self-defense. Private defense, on the other hand, only works against voluntary or involuntary attackers. With rare exceptions, aggressors are malefactors, while the person against whom the action is taken out of necessity may not be an aggressor or malefactor. A well known case in this context of the defense of necessity for murder is the case of (R v Dudley and Stephens). Dudley and Stephens are two sailors on a yacht and the defendant in the case is a cabin boy on the same yacht. The yacht's crew was lost during a storm and were forced into an open boat, with no water and few supplies. On the twentieth day, having no food for some days and being nearly a thousand miles from land, the two sailors Dudley and Stephens agreed that the cabin boy should be killed with a knife so that they could feed on his body; and one of them executed the plan. On the 4th day they were rescued by ship, in the lowest state of prostration. The two sailors were charged with murder, however the jury refused to take responsibility for convicting them in such tragic circumstances. They observed a single verdict in which they declared that “there was no greater necessity for killing the boy than for any of the other three; however, whether, in the whole matter, the prisoners were and are responsible for murder, the jury does not know and turns to the court. The conflict was examined with the help of the 5-judge Divisional Court, which held that the ac was murder. But their death sentence for murder was commuted by the Crown to a six-month prison sentence. Although (R v Dudley and Stephens) involved the corresponding requirement of necessity and right to life, the facts were unique. This was the case of numerous people involved in a common disaster, in which every single individual involved would have died if crucial measures had not been taken. Although the victim was alive, his life expectancy was relatively lower than others. These facts suggest that the defense of necessity would perhaps have been accepted without endangering the general supremacy of the right to life. In any other circumstance, where the defendant has also committed manslaughter, the possibility that the defense of necessity will be accepted is higher. For example, in a scenario where an individual is tied to a fallen climber and neither can correct the situation, it can also be very wonderful of the individual to whom they have been tied to cut the rope. The question that may also arise in such a scenario is: "but is it wrong?". It is socially desirable that at least one life should be saved. Another similar problem situation would be where an airplane engine dies on the person flying it. It would no longer be wrong if the pilot chose to land on a street where he would injure or kill some people rather than crash into a crowded football stadium. The pilot had chosen the lesser evil to stop the greater evil. In this situation you can resort to the defense of necessity. The next key place in the necessity defense is medical necessity. Without expressly recognizing it, the courts appear to have recognized a single defense to homicide by physicians. Although a doctor is aware that treatment will greatly hasten his patient's death, he is no longer guilty of murder. The doctor's aim is to provide what, in the situation he is aware of, is the perfect treatment for pain relief. An important case in the area of ​​medical necessity is the case of (RE A), the conjoined twins,conjoined twins who have been joined at the pelvis and each have their own brain, heart, lungs and other necessary organs and their own limbs. Medical evidence confirmed that the more advantageous twin supported the life of the weaker twin by circulating oxygenated blood through a frequent artery. Medical evidence also showed that the weaker twin's heart and lungs were too weak to oxygenate and pump blood through her own body. If the twins had not been separated, the stronger twin's heart would have failed sooner or later and both would have died within a few months. Doctors argued that separating the twins would allow the stronger twin to continue living and, ultimately, maintain a worthwhile life, but claimed that the weaker twin would die within minutes of separation. Surgeons no longer preferred to kill the weaker twin; however, he knew that his death was an inevitable side effect of saving the stronger twin. Furthermore, the case of (Bourne, 1939) is another case involved in the medical defense of necessity. The accused, in this case, is a surgeon, who performed an abortion on a 14-year-old girl who became pregnant following a brutal rape. He had been prosecuted for illegally procuring a miscarriage. Macnaghten, summing up to the jury, stated that he would acquit himself if he believed that the doctor had acted with just belief for the sole purpose of saving the girl's life. The doctor was acquitted. Furthermore, the part concerns the defense of necessity for driving offences. Criminal law includes some provisions for emergencies while driving. Fire brigades, police and ambulances are expressly exempted from speed limits, if compliance "will probably serve to prevent the use of the vehicle for the reason for which it is used on that occasion". The question is how the Court will allow drivers, in general, to disobey traffic rules under the doctrine of necessity. There are many indications that they will. In the case of (Buckoke v Greater London Council), Lord Denning said, “a driver of a fire engine with ladders approaches traffic lights. He sees 200 meters down the road a residence on fire with a man in the upstairs window in grave danger. The road is free in all directions. At that moment the lights turn red. Does the driver have to wait 60 seconds or more for the lights to turn green? If the driver waits for that moment, the man's life will be lost." Lord Denning accepted each information's view that the driver at the time would have committed a traffic offense if he had gone through a red light. But the risk for the imaginary man in the upstairs window is not much less than the risk for several road users. In addition to this, that part of criminal law which covers the defense of necessity in a phase of starvation. According to institutional authors, the poor, or even those dying of hunger, can no longer take justice into their own hands. The law no longer recognizes the need to eat. Although one can also steal food in certain circumstances, such as when one gets lost in the woods and discovers a cabin with some supplies as he would be able to prove that he had no reasonable choice but to steal the food. One face-saving reason, once superior to the rule, was that enough was once provided for the poor in the United States through charity and government aid. The reason has become more concrete in modern times, although for one reason or another people may still be completely destitute. If someone steals as the only way to alleviate hunger, he will be condemned, but he will certainly receive a discharge. It was undoubtedly with this position in mind that Edmund-Davies LJ 2014)