Defenses to crimes

Defense is a broad term that refers to numerous claims that serve to rebut (refute), mitigate (moderate), justify, or excuse conduct that the state has labeled criminal. Some defenses are factual. For example, an accused person may offer an alibi that demonstrates that he or she was not present at the crime scene at the time the crime occurred. Other defenses, such as insanity, acknowledge that the accused committed the crime but assert that he or she should not be held responsible. Some defenses serve to explain the circumstances of the action and negatecriminal liability. For example, if a person kills another in self-defense, the law provides that the prohibited act was justified and not appropriate for punishment.

The defense of insanity is based on the premise that those who are unable to control their actions or appreciate the criminality of their actions due to mental defect or illness should not be punished under criminal law. The insanity defense is a legal test of criminal responsibility and does not strictly conform to the medical definition of mental illness.

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. Many jurisdictions 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.

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).

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). 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.

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.

A person who is induced by the police to commit a crime that he or she would not have otherwise undertaken can claim the defense of entrapment. To prove the defense, the person must show that the idea for committing the crime originated with a law enforcement agent, that the agent persuaded him or her to commit the crime, and that he or she was not predisposed to commit such a crime. A person cannot successfully claim the defense of entrapment if the police officer merely furnishes the person with a favorable opportunity to commit crime – for example, by pretending to be intoxicated in order to catch a pickpocket who has been targeting drunk individuals.

Article 61 (of the Criminal Code of the RF). Circumstances Mitigating Punishment

The following circumstances shall be deemed to be mitigating circumstances:

a) commission of a crime of small gravity in consequence of a coincidence of circumstances;

b) age of minority of a guilty person;

c) pregnancy;

d) a guilty person’s responsibility for infant children;

e) commission of crime in consequence of a coincidence of heavy life circumstances, or out of compassion;

f) commission of a crime as a result of physical or mental coercion, or by reason of material, official, or any other dependence;

g) commission of crime through a breach of the lawful conditions for necessary defence, the detention of a person who has perpetrated the crime, extreme necessity, justified risk, or the execution of orders or instructions;

h) the illegality or amorality of the victim’s behavior, which served as a pretext for the crime;

i) the criminal’s giving himself up, or actively assisting in the exposure of a crime, catching other accomplices in a lie, or searching for property stolen as a result of a crime;

j) rendering of medical or other aid to the victim after the commission of the crime, voluntary compensation for material loss and mental injury caused as a result of the crime, and other actions of effecting restitution of damage caused to the victim.