Matches in DBpedia 2016-04 for { <http://wikidata.dbpedia.org/resource/Q531849> ?p ?o }
Showing triples 1 to 45 of
45
with 100 triples per page.
- Q531849 subject Q7006672.
- Q531849 subject Q8427928.
- Q531849 subject Q8586648.
- Q531849 abstract "In U.S. criminal law, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense. Except for a few statutory exemptions and in some medical cases there is no corresponding defense in English law for murder.For example, a drunk driver might contend that he drove his car to get away from a kidnap (cf. North by Northwest). Most common law and civil law jurisdictions recognize this defense, but only under limited circumstances. Generally, the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence) that (a) the harm he sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct he is charged with; (b) he had no reasonable alternative; (c) he ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) he did not himself create the danger he sought to avoid. Thus, with the "drunk driver" example cited above, the necessity defense will not be recognized if the defendant drove further than was reasonably necessary to get away from the kidnapper, or if some other reasonable alternative was available to him. However case law suggests necessity is narrowed to medical cases.Necessity as a defense to criminal acts conducted to meet political ends was rejected in the case of United States v. Schoon. In that case, thirty people, including appellants, gained admittance to the IRS office in Tucson, where they chanted "keep America's tax dollars out of El Salvador," splashed simulated blood on the counters, walls, and carpeting, and generally obstructed the office's operation. The court ruled that the elements of necessity did not exist in this case.".
- Q531849 wikiPageExternalLink compulsion.htm.
- Q531849 wikiPageExternalLink explorers.html.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q10427676.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q1194894.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q1196824.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q1404417.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q146491.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q158970.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q159394.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q17109720.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q177634.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q223139.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q30216.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q318296.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q4026292.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q40283.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q43229.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q4394526.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q471855.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q5156309.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q525361.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q5950118.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q6498663.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q665141.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q6985429.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q6985432.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q6985433.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q7006672.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q7566.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q7569.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q7748.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q83267.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q838247.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q8427928.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q8586648.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q898256.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q942582.
- Q531849 wikiPageWikiLink Q973587.
- Q531849 type Thing.
- Q531849 comment "In U.S. criminal law, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense.".
- Q531849 label "Necessity".