Define: Lesser-Evils Defence

The Lesser-Evils Defense is a legal argument used to justify an action that would normally be considered illegal or unethical, by arguing that it was necessary to prevent a greater harm or evil.

The Lesser-Evils Defense can be used when an individual is facing criminal charges and believes that their actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm or evil from occurring.

Some examples include cases where individuals have committed minor offenses, such as trespassing or theft, in order to prevent a more serious crime, such as assault or murder.

Courts typically consider factors such as the immediacy and severity of the harm being prevented, the availability of alternative courses of action, and whether the harm caused by the defendant’s actions was proportional to the harm being prevented.

No, the Lesser-Evils Defense is typically only applicable in criminal cases where the defendant is facing charges for their actions.

No, the success of the Lesser-Evils Defense depends on the specific circumstances of each case and the discretion of the judge or jury. It is not a guaranteed defence strategy.

No, the Lesser-Evils Defense has limitations and cannot be used to justify actions that are inherently illegal or unethical, such as intentional harm or violence.

Yes, the Lesser-Evils Defense can be used in cases where an individual claims self-defence, arguing that their actions were necessary to protect themselves or others from imminent harm.

Yes, public officials can use the Lesser-Evils Defense to justify their actions if they can demonstrate that their actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm or protect the public interest.

While both defences involve justifying an action based on the necessity to prevent harm, the Lesser-Evils Defense specifically focuses on preventing a greater harm or evil, whereas the Necessity Defense can be used to justify actions necessary to prevent any harm, regardless of its magnitude.