There are four major types of justification defenses all of which can be instrumental in explaining people’s actions. The necessity defense and self-defense have long been considered to be closely related. Both of them center around the situation in which a person is exposed to immediate threat and protects himself or herself in a way which is considered unlawful under other circumstances. Although these two types may seem similar, there is an important detail which helps distinguish between the two.
Self-defense focuses on the situation where a person has to harm or kill an individual which poses immediate threat to him or her. The defense in such case claims that a person had no other choice but to harm or kill the offender. The situation with necessity defense typically involves more complex issues where free will is one of the main concepts. Nelson (2017) points out that at the foundation of the criminal law is the assumption that criminals have free will. Whereas the necessity defense justification is actually based on the assumption that human beings do not always exercise free will. Some lawyers argue that there are situations (like starving to death) which are clearly centered around survival and leave no other options but to find basic resources by any means.
R v Dudley and Stephens (1884) criminal case involving survival cannibalism resulted in establishing a precedent stating that necessity is not a defense to a charge of murder. Dudley and Stephens were shipwrecked and decided to kill the cabin boy who fell into a coma. Both men were charged with murder, as the panel found that there was no defense of necessity. In 1997 a Northeast Baltimore liquor store owner shot a robber while struggling for a gun. It was the second holdup when Sung Kim had to shoot a man. Both cases were considered self-defense and shootings were justified.
Reference
Nelson, D. (2017). The free will distinction between self-defense & the necessity defense. Kentucky Law Journal. Web.