The main function of the criminal justice system is to punish those who have done something wrong. As a rule, it is presumed that the lack of knowledge about the nature of a crime does not justify one for committing that crime. However, there are some instances in which criminal justice considers justifying the criminal. Some of such legal defenses are infancy, intoxication, ignorance, and mistake.
Infancy refers to the argument that the defendant was too young to understand the nature and consequences of their actions. Thus, the accused is below the age of criminal responsibility (Currier et al., 2020). This defense typically applies to minors, who may be tried as juveniles or receive reduced sentences if convicted. For example, if a ten-year-old child steals candy from a store, they may be considered to be acting under the defense of infancy and not punished as harshly as a mature individual who committed the same crime.
Intoxication refers to the argument that the defendant was under the effect of alcohol or drugs and, therefore, was not able to express the intent to commit a crime. This defense can also apply to individuals who were involuntarily intoxicated, such as through being slipped a drug (Tonry, 2020). This defense can be used to reduce the severity of a criminal charge or even serve as a complete defense in some cases. For instance, if a person is charged with disorderly conduct after a night of heavy drinking, they may argue that their intoxication diminished their capacity to control their actions.
Ignorance refers to the argument that the defendant did not know that their actions were illegal. This defense may be used in cases where the law is unclear or the defendant was not informed about the law (Currier et al., 2020). For example, if a person is charged with tax evasion because they did not know they were to pay taxes on their foreign income, they may argue that they acted under the defense of ignorance. Furthermore, an individual who is new to the country and does not know that jaywalking is illegal cannot be held responsible for the crime if they have no way of knowing the law.
Mistake refers to the argument that the defendant believed they were acting legally and did not intend to commit a crime. This defense is typically used in cases where the defendant made an honest mistake and did not have any criminal intent (Currier et al., 2020). Thus, the individual should have a genuine belief that their actions were legal, and the mistake was reasonable. For example, if a person is charged with theft because they took an item that they believed was theirs, they may argue that they acted under the defense of mistake. However, when a person who mistakenly believes that it is legal to park in a handicapped spot and receives a ticket cannot use mistake as a defense if they did not take steps to confirm the legality of their actions. Still, if they checked with a police officer before parking and were given incorrect information, they could use mistake as a defense.
In conclusion, infancy, intoxication, ignorance, and mistake are four defenses used in the criminal justice system to weaken the consequences of criminal charges. They each address different circumstances and intent and may be used in combination or separately in criminal cases. However, the availability of these defenses will depend on the specific circumstances of the case, and their effectiveness will vary depending on the evidence and the jurisdiction.
References
Currier, K. A., Eimermann, T. E., & Campbell, M. S. (2020). The study of law: A critical thinking approach (5th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Tonry, M. (2020). Doing justice, preventing crime. Oxford University Press.