Criminal Law

B

Age

A perpetrator's youth has long been a defense to criminal charges because children are deemed incapable of making rational decisions for which they should be held accountable. Under the common law, a child under 7 years of age is deemed too young to be criminally responsible. A child between the ages of 7 and 14 cannot be convicted of crime without proof that he or she knows the difference between right and wrong. A child 14 years of age or older is deemed sufficiently mature to be criminally responsible in most circumstances.

Many jurisdictions have abandoned these arbitrary common law categories and have enacted statutes describing juvenile crime. Under these statutes children under a specified age (which varies from state to state) who commit crimes are considered guilty of delinquency rather than a criminal act, based on the theory that children need help more than punishment. Some statutes, however, allow for youths to be tried as adults for serious crimes, such as murder, rape, and armed robbery.

C

Intoxication

Intoxication, whether caused by alcohol, illegal drugs, or prescribed medications, may produce a state of mind resembling insanity. An intoxicated offender often cannot distinguish right from wrong or may have an irresistible impulse. For intoxication to be used as a defense against a crime, it must be involuntary (for example, if one is forced to consume an intoxicant, or if one consumes an intoxicant without knowledge of its mentally disabling nature).

D

Duress

A person who commits a crime because another is exerting extreme influence or pressure upon them may have the defense of duress (also known as coercion). Most jurisdictions allow the defense of duress only when (1) the pressure exerted is immediate and substantial, such as the threat of death or serious bodily harm; (2) the coercion is such that a reasonable person in the offender's position would have committed the crime; and (3) the offender did not willingly participate in creating a situation where coercion was likely. For example, if a woman kills a man because another person who is armed threatens to kill her if she does not, she would have the defense of duress to any charge of murder.

---

---

E

Mistake

Mistake of fact constitutes a defense to criminal liability if it can be shown that, owing to the mistake, the accused person lacked the mental fault required to commit the crime in question. If a person takes another's coat, mistakenly believing that it is his or her own coat, this mistake negates the intent to steal that is required for the crime of larceny. On the other hand, if a person, with the intent to steal, takes another's coat mistakenly believing that the coat belongs to a third person, this mistake does not negate the person’s intent to steal, and he or she is guilty of larceny. In certain instances a crime is committed even if the perpetrator made a mistake that negates his or her intent to commit a crime. For example, a person who has sexual intercourse with a minor (a person who is under a certain age specified by statute) can be found guilty of statutory rape even if he or she honestly believed that the other person was older.

The general rule is that ignorance or mistake of criminal law is not a defense to criminal liability. Therefore, if a person engages in a criminal act without knowing that the act is illegal, the mistake is no defense to criminal liability. This rule applies even if the mistake is based on the advice of a lawyer, because a contrary rule would encourage ignorance of the law. Some courts, however, recognize the defense of ignorance if the accused person (1) acted in reasonable, good-faith reliance upon a statute or judicial decision that is subsequently held to be invalid; or (2) reasonably relied upon an erroneous interpretation or statement of law provided by a public official legally responsible for the interpretation, administration, or enforcement of the law.

F

Self-Defense

As a general rule, the law provides a defense for actions that reasonably appear necessary to protect oneself from the imminent (immediate) use of unlawful force. For example, a person is justified in the use of deadly force in self-defense if he or she reasonably believes that deadly force is necessary to prevent an act that would cause immediate death or serious bodily injury to himself or herself. If acting in self-defense, one may respond only with force proportional to the force defended against or necessary to resist the unlawful attack. Thus, one may not use deadly force except in response to deadly force. One who has initiated or provoked an attack generally may not claim self-defense.

	More from Encarta
	•  Important Notice: MSN Encarta to be discontinued. Learn more. •  Presidential Myths Quiz •  Coffee break: Recharge your brain