Editing Excuse (section)

===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.