Criminal Liability

There is of course the defense of mental illness to pardon the defendant from culpability. Criminal liability, guilt can be attributed to an individual who acts “purposely,” “knowingly,” “recklessly,” or “negligently.” Statutes give additional definition to these concepts and set forth which mental state applies to a particular crime. Another defense is involuntary intoxication, as a result of intoxication which is not voluntary, the actor at the time of the conduct lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct or to perform a material element of the offense, or lacked sufficient willpower to choose whether the person would do the act or refrain from doing it. I am not personally fond of this as a defense but I suppose that situation does happen. Another defense is that the subject was acting under duress, fearing harm for themselves or others and operating under the threat or reasonable fear of harm. Entrapment is another defense that suggests that the subject should not be punished because of the wrongdoing of the officer originates the idea of the crime and then induces the other person to engage in conduct constituting such a crime when the other person is not otherwise disposed to do so. Another defense is justification, whether the subject had the right to act such as a police officer acting within his job or use of force to protect one’s self or family, lesser of evils justification which required immediate action in an emergency situation. I think there may be a better way to handle criminal liability and how it is defended from a legal standpoint, there are many different defenses and the burden is on the state to prove the case so I believe the defendant usually have the upper hand if they are not guilty of the crime.