English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Ann swings her arm and injures Ben. She faces moral condemnation and legal liability unless she can offer an explanation that absolves her of full blame. She might make a claim of justification that, despite initial appearances, her action was desirable or proper, or she might make a claim of excuse that she does not bear full responsibility for injuring Ben. If Ann is fully justified, she will not be subject to blame or to classification as a weak or defective person. If Ann is excused, she may be regarded as wholly or partly free of blame, but she will have demonstrated weakness or some defect. Because the moral evaluation of a justified actor differs from the moral evaluation of an excused actor, deciding whether Ann is justified or excused is an important moral question. In the legal context, a defendant who successfully establishes the legal analogue of a moral justification or excuse is typically relieved of liability. Because of the injury to Ben, it is likely that Ann will be prosecuted for assault, which is defined as "purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to another."' Nevertheless, Ann may offer an exonerating explanation that precludes satisfaction of the basic elements of the crime or that, conceding the presence of the basic elements, precludes liability on other grounds. In modern American criminal law the terms "justification" and "excuse" only refer to the second kind of explanation-that is, they concede the presence of the basic elements but deny liability on independent grounds. If Ann acknowledges that she intentionally hit Ben but did so to prevent him from detonating a bomb, she offers ajustification; if she says that she decided to hit him because she was insane, she offers an excuse. There are other explanations that exonerate an actor from liability because they preclude satisfaction of the basic elements of a crime. These explanations are similar to justifications or excuses but are not labelled as such by the law. If Ann says she had to take the risk that her swinging arm

Distinguishing Justifications from Excuses