Justification versus excuse

Justification is the act of defending or explaining or making excuses for by reasoning. To justify is to meet certain criteria to explain actions. One of these criteria is there rationale present to believe one was defending property or loved ones, is the act in question justified? What is the relevance of the actor's intent in assessing whether his conduct is justified? Justification is often calling in to question the lesser of evils, almost all western legal systems accept self defense as permissible and therefore being justification for preventing harm to one’s self or loved ones. A distinguishing feature of justificatory claims, most Western legal systems require that the actor know and act on the circumstances that allegedly justify his conduct. An excuse is a reason alleged for the doing or not doing a thing. This word presents two ideas differing essentially from each other. In one case an excuse may be made in, order to own that the party accused is not guilty; in another, by showing that though guilty, he is less so, than he appears to be. People are sometimes excused for acts that are ordinarily considered crimes either because they had no intention of doing wrong, or because they had no power of judging, and therefore had no criminal will. Claims of justification rest on norms of society as a whole that create exceptions to the prohibitions of the criminal law. Excuses are different. Excuses derive from norms directed not to the public, but rather to legal officials, judges, and juries, who assess the accountability of those who unjustifiably violate the law. Excusing a particular violation does not alter the legal prohibition. Recognizing mistake of law as an excuse does not change the law; if the excused, mistaken party were to leave the courthouse and commit the violation again, he would clearly be guilty.