LogFAQs > #882470789

StealThisSheen posted...

So, for example, if a crazy person says they killed somebody because they fully believed that the person was a government agent out to kill them, and thus they believe they did nothing wrong, that is justification, not an excuse.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/insanity_defense

The insanity defense is traditionally classified as an excuse defense, in contrast with justification defenses like self-defense. This classification indicates that, while the action committed by a defendant was impermissible, the actor is excused because of a prevailing condition, here insanity.



among the things i looked up, legal-dictionary was one of the early things i saw too but quickly realized it wasn't specific enough for layman's usage. as written there you wouldn't know the difference. this is a short blurb that may help a bit in terms of categories, though it still isn't explained well.

http://defensewiki.ibj.org/index.php/Justification_and_Excuse

but it does help understand which defenses are justifications and which defenses are excuses.


edit:
and no, both of them admit to wrongdoing. if you don't admit to wrongdoing at all, neither is applied.
in a justification, the wrongdoing is accepted as something to avoid a greater wrong.
in an excuse, the wrongdoing is accepted but you try to explain why you aren't (completely) at fault.
---

"Maybe it's a tentacle, molesting the planet itself. - Aschen Brodel.