Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Procedural Rationale for the Necessity Defense

  • Published:
The Journal of Value Inquiry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. See Michelle Knudsen and Kevin Hawkes, Library Lion (Cambridge, England: Candlewick Press, 2006).

  2. See Model Penal Code s. 3.02.

  3. Larry Alexander, “Lesser Evils: A Closer Look at the Paradigmatic Justification,” Law and Philosophy 24 (2005); also see Mitchell Berman, “Lesser Evils and Justification: A Less Close Look,” Law and Philosophy 24 (2005); Kenneth W. Simons, “Exploring the Intricacies of the Lesser Evils Defense,” Law and Philosophy 24 (2005); George Fletcher, Rethinking Criminal Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 774; Paul Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses (St. Paul: West Press, 1984), p. 4; Glanville Williams, “The Theory of Excuses,” Criminal Law Review(1982), p. 732; cf. Michelle R. Conde, “Necessity Defined: A New Role in the Criminal Defense System,” UCLA Law Review 29 (1981), p. 413.

  4. See Susan Wolf, “Asymmetrical Freedom,” The Journal of Philosophy 77 (1980).

  5. See Paul Robinson, “Criminal Law Defenses: A Systematic Analysis,” Columbia Law Review 82 (1982).

  6. See Gideon Yaffe, “‘The Government Beguiled Me’: The Entrapment Defense and the Problem of Private Entrapment,” The Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 1 (2005).

  7. Thanks are due to Doug Husak for this terminology and for clarifying the distinction in procedural defenses.

  8. See 24 F.Cas. 873 (C.C.D. Mass. 1834) (No. 14,470).

  9. Model Penal Code, Commentary, prt. 1, p. 12.

  10. See 415 Mass. 835, 616 N.E.2d 53 (1993).

  11. Ibid.

  12. See 2 All E.R. 175 (1971).

  13. Cf. Matthew Hale, The History of the Pleas of the Crown (Philadelphia: 1847), prt. 1, ch. 9, p. 54.

  14. Model Penal Code, s. 3.02.

  15. Ibid.

  16. See 241 Neb. 565, 490 N.W.2d 184 (1992).

  17. See Claire Finkelstein, “When the Rule Swallows the Exception,” Quinnipiac Law Review 19 (2000).

  18. See 14 QBD 273 DC (1884).

  19. I would like to thank Claire Finkelstein, Steve Finlay, Doug Husak, and Scott Shapiro for comments on earlier drafts, and Bridget Asay, Civil Appellate Director for the Attorney General of the state of Vermont, for asking me if the Library Lion has a necessity defense.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Philosophy, Mudd Hall, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90089-0451, USA

    Gideon Yaffe

Authors
  1. Gideon Yaffe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gideon Yaffe.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yaffe, G. A Procedural Rationale for the Necessity Defense. J Value Inquiry 43, 369–389 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-009-9179-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-009-9179-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation