What is the name of the defense that argues that the defendant's actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm?

The defense that argues a defendant's actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm is known as necessity. This legal principle allows individuals to justify their actions if they had to engage in unlawful behavior to avert a more serious threat or harm. For instance, if a person breaks into a building to escape an imminent flood, they may argue necessity by demonstrating that their actions were aimed at avoiding a greater danger.

In essence, necessity is rooted in the idea that the law should allow for exceptions in extreme situations where adhering to the law would lead to worse outcomes. It emphasizes a moral choice, where the defendant is faced with two adverse outcomes and chooses the lesser of the two evils. This defense is generally not available for actions that result in serious crimes or significant harm to others, maintaining a realm of balance between legal consequences and ethical considerations.

Understanding this concept is crucial in legal studies as it reflects the complexities surrounding legal accountability and human decision-making in crises.