Justifiable homicide
The concept of justifiable homicide in criminal law is a defense to culpable homicide. Generally, there is a burden of production of exculpatory evidence in the legal defense of justification. In most countries, a homicide is justified when there is sufficient evidence to disprove the alleged criminal act or wrongdoing. The key to this legal defense is that it was reasonable for the subject to believe that there was an imminent and otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent by the deceased when he or she committed the homicide. A homicide in this instance is blameless. Although it does not constitute homicide, charges and claims of assaults, batteries, and other similar criminal charges and claims of wrongdoing are similarly defensible under the legal defense of self defense.
Common excusing conditions
Potentially excusing conditions common to multiple jurisdictions include the following.- Capital punishment.
- Where a state is engaged in a war with a legitimate casus belli, a combatant may lawfully kill an enemy combatant so long as that combatant is not hors de combat. This principle is embedded in public international law and has been respected by most states around the world. Thus, if there is no formal declaration of war or the casus belli is not legitimate, all those who engage in the fighting and kill enemy combatants could theoretically be prosecuted. Protecting the national interest against external aggressors is considered an excuse on utilitarian grounds, i.e. the greatest public good will be derived from the defeat of the enemy.
- In most countries, it is lawful for a citizen to repel violence with violence to protect his or her own or another's life and limb, to prevent arson of an occupied building, or to prevent violent sexual assault or to quell a riot.
- *The scope of self-defense varies; some jurisdictions have a duty to retreat rule that disallows this defense if it was safe to flee from potential violence. In some jurisdictions, the castle doctrine allows the use of deadly force in self-defense against an intruder in one's home. Other jurisdictions have stand-your-ground laws that allow use of deadly force in self-defense a vehicle or in public, without a duty to retreat.
- Where the person's death is inflicted by the effecting of lawful arrest or prevention of lawfully detained person's escape, quelling riot or insurrection when the use of force is "no more than absolutely necessary".
- The doctrine of necessity allows, for example, a surgeon to separate conjoined twins, killing the weaker twin to allow the stronger twin to survive..
- In the United States, the 2005 Unborn Victims of Violence Act changed the legal definition of human fetuses to "unborn children", formally defining feticide as murder. However, the law retains explicit exceptions which prohibit the prosecution "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion," "of any person for any medical treatment," or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child," thereby preserving the right to an abortion stemming from Roe v. Wade.
- Several countries, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Japan, the U.S. states of Oregon and Washington and the Canadian province of Quebec allow both active and passive euthanasia by law, if justified.
- The "heat of the moment" defense for crimes of passion: death results from a situation where the defendant is deemed to have lost control. This is often considered a part of the defense of provocation against charges of murder. Based on the idea that all individuals may suddenly and unexpectedly lose control when words are spoken or events occur, jurisdictions differ on whether this should be allowed to excuse liability or merely mitigate to a lesser offense such as manslaughter, and under which circumstances this defense can be used.
- A few jurisdictions do not prosecute or have a lesser penalty for honor killings.
European Convention on Human Rights
Example of Criminal Procedure Act in South Africa
In South Africa, §49 Criminal Procedure Act used to provide:Examples of justifiable homicide in the United States of America
A non-criminal homicide ruling, usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another, exists under United States law. A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, manslaughter or murder. The victim must reasonably believe, under the totality of the circumstances, that the assailant intended to commit a criminal act that would likely result in the death or life-threatening injury of an innocent person. A homicide performed out of vengeance, or retribution for action in the past, or in pursuit of a "fleeing felon" would not be considered justifiable.In many states, given a case of self-defense, the defendant is expected to obey a duty to retreat if it is possible to do so. In the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia, Washington, Wyoming and other Castle Doctrine states, there is no duty to retreat in certain situations. Preemptive self-defense, in which one kills another on suspicion that the victim might eventually become dangerous, is not justifiable.
In the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of District of Columbia v. Heller, the majority held that the Constitution protected the right to the possession of firearms for the purpose of self-defense "and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home".
Two other forms of justifiable homicide are unique to the prison system: the death penalty and preventing prisoners from escaping. To quote the California State Penal Code that covers justifiable homicide:
Although the above text is from California law, many other jurisdictions, like Florida, have similar laws to prevent escapes from custody.