Editing Excuse (section)

==Explanation==
The [[executive (government)|executive]] and [[legislative]] branches of modern [[State (polity)|states]] enact policy into laws which are then administered through the judicial system. [[Judge]]s also have a residual discretion to excuse individuals from [[Legal liability|liability]] if it represents a [[justice|just]] result. When considering the consequences which are to be imposed on those involved in the activities forming the subject matter of the [[common law]] or [[legislation]], [[government]]s and judges have a choice:
:the criminal or civil [[defendant]] may be excused from liability as belonging to a class of person that ought to be excused, their behaviour may be considered justified, or an exculpation may be allowed on the merits of the particular case.{{citation needed|date=August 2023}}
To be ''excused'' from liability means that although the defendant may have been a participant in the sequence of events leading to the prohibited outcome, no liability will attach to the particular defendant because they belong to a class of person exempted from liability. In some cases, this will be a policy of expediency. Hence, members of the [[armed forces]], the [[police]] or other civil organizations may be granted a degree of immunity for causing prohibited outcomes while acting in the course of their official duties, e.g. for an [[assault]] or trespass to the person caused during a lawful [[arrest]] or for an ambulance driver exceeding the speed limit in an emergency. Others are excused by virtue of their status and capacity. Others may escape liability because the quality of their actions satisfied a general public [[goodness and value theory|good]]. For example, the willingness to [[self-defense (theory)|defend]] oneself and others, or [[defense of property|property]] from injury may benefit [[society]] at large. Albeit that the actions of a [[vigilante]] fall outside the formal controls that would seek to ensure reasonable use of force in state-appointed police officers, such people may accidentally find themselves interrupting the commission of a crime and their actions in defence of their own or another's interests is justified out of expediency as opposed to having to wait until a police officer arrives before help can be rendered.  Whilst the jurisprudential importance of the distinction between justification and excuse defenses is clear, legally they have the same effect, acquittal, and there is an ongoing debate about whether the distinction makes any practical difference.

An ''exculpation'' is a [[defense (legal)|defense]] in which a [[defendant]] argues that despite the fact they committed and are guilty of the [[crime]], [[tort]], or other wrong and have a liability to compensate the victim, they should be exculpated because of special circumstances that operated in favor of the defendant at the time they broke the [[law]].

===Defenses===
*[[Defense of infancy]]
:This is an aspect of the [[public policy (law)|public policy]] of ''[[parens patriae]]''. In the criminal law, each state will consider the nature of its own [[society]] and the available evidence of the age at which antisocial behavior begins to manifest itself. Some societies will have qualities of indulgence toward the young and inexperienced and will not wish them to be exposed to the criminal law system before all other avenues of response have been exhausted. Hence, some states have a policy of ''[[doli incapax]]'' and exclude liability for all acts and omissions that would otherwise have been criminal up to a specified age. Thereafter, there may be a [[rebuttable presumption]] against the use of criminal sanctions except in more serious cases. Other states leave discretion to [[prosecutor]]s to argue or the judges to rule on whether the child understood that what was being done was wrong.
:The status of [[minor (law)|minor]] may also excuse liability in the [[civil law (common law)|civil law]] for [[contract]], [[tort]] and other legal situations during which liabilities would otherwise attach to the infant. Where there is only minimal understanding, transactions entered into will be void, i.e. the infant is excused. When understanding grows in line with age, the law switches from excuse to exculpation, and transactions may be voidable, i.e. the courts will judge, whether in the particular circumstances, it would be right to favor the interests of the child or the interests of the other party or parties involved in the transaction. Hence, it would not be appropriate to allow a child knowingly to deceive innocent retailers or service providers into supplying value, and then allow him or her to avoid liability to pay a reasonable sum of money for those goods or services. This is a balancing of political and commercial interests.
*[[Insanity defense]], [[Mental Disorder (Insanity) Defense|mental disorder defence]]s and the [[M'Naghten Rules]]
:If individuals are a danger to society and/or to themselves but not responsible through a lack of understanding, there is no point in [[punishment]] (whether in the criminal or non-criminal sense). Punishment is only justified [[morality|morally]] if the person understands that what was done was wrong and accepts the judgment of society as part of the process of [[expiation]] and [[rehabilitation (penology)|rehabilitation]]. Hence, as with ''parens patriae'', the state accepts the person as being in need of care, and offers or requires medical treatment instead of subjecting such people to the stress of having to undergo a trial as to liability.
*[[Settled insanity]] is defined as a permanent or "settled" condition caused by long-term [[substance abuse]] and differs from the temporary state of [[Alcohol intoxication|intoxication]]. In some [[United States]] jurisdictions "settled insanity" can be used as a basis for an [[insanity defense]], even though voluntary intoxication can not, if the "settled insanity"  negates one of the required elements of the crime  such as [[mens rea]].
*[[Automatism (law)|Automatism]]
:This criminal defense straddles the divide between excuse and exculpation. It works by showing that the defendant's mind was not in control of the body's movements at the relevant time and that this loss of control was not foreseeable. For example, a [[diabetes|diabetic]] suffering a [[hypoglycaemia|hypoglycaemic]] attack will not be liable for any loss or damage caused. To that extent, it borrows from the policy excuse favoring those who are suffering from a mental illness, but allows the full trial as to liability to proceed. For a detailed comparative law discussion, see [[automatism (case law)]].
*Self-defense is, in general, some reasonable action taken in protection of self.  An act taken in self-defense often is not a crime at all; no punishment will be imposed.  To qualify, any defensive force must be proportionate to the threat.  Use of a firearm in response to a non-lethal threat is a typical example of disproportionate force; however, such decisions are dependent on the situation and the applicable law, and thus the example situation can in some circumstances be defensible, generally because of a codified presumption intended to prevent the unjust negation of this defense by the trier of fact.

===Exculpations===
*[[Duress]] in criminal law and in [[duress (contract law)|contract]] law
:In this situation, the defendant has actually done everything to break the law and intended to do it to avoid some threatened or actual harm. Thus, some degree of liability already attaches to the defendant for what was done. In law, the usual rule is that the defendant's motive for breaking the law is irrelevant although, in the criminal law, this may reduce the sentence. The basis of the defense argues that the threats made by the other person make the defendant's entire behavior involuntary and therefore the liability should be reduced or removed. The extent to which this defense should be allowed, if at all, is a simple matter of public policy. A state may say that no threat should force a person deliberately to break the law, particularly if this breach will cause loss or damage to a third person. Alternatively, a state may take the view that even though people may have ordinary levels of courage, they may nevertheless be coerced into agreeing to break the law and this human weakness should have some recognition in the law. For example, suppose that a group of terrorists kidnap A's family and instruct A to carry a large bomb into a crowded area as the price for the release of their family. If A carries out these instructions, making no effort to contact the police or to warn those in the danger area, the issue of liability for death and injury resulting depends on the state's values. This is a legal as well as a political decision. In the civil law, duress is similarly only an exculpation, rendering contracts and other transactions voidable, and offering only minor mitigation in the calculation of the amount of any [[damages]] payable.
*[[Mistake (criminal law)|Mistake of fact]] and [[mistake of law]] in criminal law and in [[mistake (contract law)|mistake in contract law]]
:The general policy usually allocated in cases of mistakes is ''[[ignorantia juris non excusat]]'', i.e. the state cannot allow ignorance of the law to be a defense. This would unduly encourage the lazy and the deceitful to trade on their ignorance (real or otherwise). Thus, usually only mistakes relating to the factual basis of what is being attempted can form this defense and, in the majority of situations, it will only offer limited benefit to a defendant of ordinary capacity since the state owes no general duty to save citizens from the effects of their own ignorance or stupidity. Nevertheless, there may be limited circumstances in which people may honestly believe things that either prevent them from forming the requisite ''[[mens rea]]'' or from reaching an ''[[ad idem]]'' agreement.
*[[Provocation (legal)|Provocation]]
:This is an example of a purely mitigatory defense in that, in the few situations when it is allowed to operate, it only reduces the level of criminal liability. In most legal systems, it cannot extinguish liability. It is a natural part of human nature that people get angry when they are provoked. But the state has a positive interest in maintaining good order and therefore, no matter what is done or said, people are not supposed to react violently or to cause loss or damage. Even though certain forms of physical contact or particular words might cause even reasonable people to become seriously annoyed, the state cannot sanction or justify retaliation. Thus, in most aspects of the law, any loss of control is taken to be an aggravating factor that, in the criminal law or the law of intentional torts, might well lead to an increase in sentencing, or the award of punitive or exemplary damages.