Definition of Justification
Justification in criminology refers to the process of trying to prove that someone is right. It entails the act of defense on any criminal offence prosecution. In such a case, an offensive act could be justified but it is not necessarily liable to be a criminal offense. In justification, there is the aspect of setting apart some exceptional prohibition in as far as commission of some offenses is concerned (Siegel, 2008). A good example is a situation in which someone kills another during a fight. The offense committed by this person is murder. However, on the basis of justification it can be termed as man slaughter because the reason behind the killing was not intentional but rather the death occurred as the person was trying to defend himself from the other person’s attacks.
The Difference between a Justification and an Excuse
Excuse is almost similar to justification in that it is also entails trying to prove that a person was right in committing a certain offense. However, there are a few elements that distinguish the two. In excuse, a person will admit that there was a crime that was committed, but that he should not be punished for the crime due to some surrounding circumstances. The argument used is that the person who committed the crime did so as a result of some shortcoming in his or her personality, for instance, due to mental defects, inability to control themselves or even age-related factors (Newburn, 2007). Some of the differences between justification and excuse include the fact that justification is universal while an excuse is personal in nature and in most cases it applies only to the unique individual who has committed the offence. In addition, a justification does not really admit that a person has committed an offence but an excuse admits that a crime has been committed but then tries to explain the reasons for the occurrence of the crime. For example, if two friends John and Tom were involved in a game and Tom injures John intentionally, then it means that John can make a legal claim on the matter. However, Tom will try to justify himself as to why he committed the act. In the process, he may be justified by the reason that he injured John out of self defense and hence he may not be blamed for the act. On the other hand, if Tom admits to committing the act due to some reasons such as loss of temper then this becomes an excuse for committing the crime and he may be blamed for committing the act.
Comparison and Differences between the Criteria of Excuse and Justification
There are similarities as well as differences in the criteria involved in justifications and excuses. One of the main differences between the criteria of justification and excuse falls under the issue of moral evaluation of the offense. In justification, there is an aspect of interest balance while in the criteria of excuse there lacks a balance of interest at any particular moment. This is because an excuse only takes the best interest of the offender and not the offended while the criteria used in justification has the best interests of both parties. A second difference is that an excuse criterion is implemented on personal basis unlike in justification in which the criterion is implemented on universal basis (Siegel, 2008). This implies that justification affects all the people who are aware of law violations while excuse only affects the convict.
The third difference in the criterion used in justification and excuse is that claims are derived from very different norms as far as criminal law is concerned. For instance, in justification the norms are derived from the public while in excuse the norms are derived from the legal officials. The juries, the judges and lawyers make the assessment of the excuse given by the offender. Despite the differences, there is a great similarity between the criteria used in justification and excuse. This applies when the law violator is aware of the reason behind his criminal behavior. In such a situation, the person who has committed the crime can be justified based, for instance, on self defense.
Criminal Capacity and its Impact on the Defense Process
Criminal capacity refers to the required ability of a person to differentiate a wrong action from a right action in as far as making a judgment of whether someone has committed a crime or not is concerned. This can be defined in terms of the mental capability of a particular person or even in terms of age. Criminal capacity can impact the defense process in a great way. For instance, it is stated that a criminal who is mentally sick is not liable to an act of crime that he has committed. This means that while in actual sense the person committed the crime, he was not mentally stable and therefore he cannot be punished for his offenses. Such a judgment may seem unfair to the offended because he will not get the justice he deserves (Packer, 2009). Mental incapability also interferes with the issue of rationality used in the defense process. This is because the law violator is not free to reason for himself. In addition, criminal capacity affects the defense process in terms of time wastage. The capacity of the offender has to be tested and this may require a visit to a doctor for physical or mental examination before any verdict can be reached by the jury. This may prolong the defense and conviction process.
The Connection between Criminal Conviction and Criminal Capacity
A criminal conviction refers to the process of making a judgment that a person is indeed guilty of committing a crime. It involves a series of hearing proceedings that lead to the final judgment. Six processes are involved in criminal conviction namely; finding information about the crime, the summoning, appearance of the defendant, confessions of the convict or his defense, presentation of evidence, and finally the judgment. There is a great connection between the criminal conviction process and criminal capacity (Simon, 1998). This is because during the criminal conviction process, the criminal capacity of the suspect is investigated. This occurs during the first step of the criminal conviction process during which information is collected and analyzed for the purpose of establishing the criminal capacity of the convict. Some of the information that is helpful includes the age of the convict, the mental stability of the victim, the place of crime commission and the status of the convict. In addition, the criminal conviction process is greatly dependent on the criminal capacity of the suspect because a person who is found to be mentally incapacitated will not go through the same defense process as a mentally capacitated person (Simon, 1998).
Reference List
Newburn, T. (2007). Criminology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Packer, K. (2009). Evaluation of criminal responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Siegel, L. (2008). Criminology. London: Cengage Learning.
Simon, R. (1998). The jury and the defense of insanity. New York: Transaction Publishers.