i. Using the principles of actus reus, mens rea, attendant circumstances,
I. Criminal Defenses
i. Individuals may have performed illegal acts, but may nonetheless be not
guilty of a crime due to the applicability of legally recognized defenses.
ii. Legal defenses derive from the way crime is defined.
iii. In most criminal cases the defense attempts to cast doubt on the
defendant’s guilt.
iv. In other cases, however, the defense may assert specific legal doctrines in
an attempt to secure an acquittal.
v. An alibi defense permits defendants to argue that they were somewhere
else at the time the crime was committed.
vi. Defenses that Negate Mens Rea
1. Sometimes people engage in an act that, at first blush might appear to
2. The two most common of these defenses include the mistake of fact
defense and the defense of necessity.
vii. Defenses of Justification
1. Defenses of justification are based on the commission of an act under
viii. Procedural Defenses
2. These defenses are generally unconcerned with factual guilt. Rather,
ix. Defenses of Excuse
1. Defenses of excuse seek to excuse acts committed by defendants who
2. In most states children under the age of 7 are considered legally
3. The premise of juvenile delinquency is that people under a certain age
are less responsible for their actions than adults.
Class Discussion/Activity 9
The law recognizes certain defenses to crime. In those cases, even when an
individual has committed the guilty act (actus reus) of an offense, they are not
guilty of the crime charged. Why shouldn’t those who commit the guilty act always
be held accountable for their actions?