How does the principle of 'necessity' function as a defense in criminal law?

The principle of 'necessity' in criminal law operates on the premise that an individual may justifiably engage in conduct that is otherwise illegal when that conduct is made necessary to prevent a more significant harm from occurring. This means that if a person commits a crime, such as breaking into a property to evade a flood or stealing food to prevent starvation, their actions may be excused if it can be shown that these actions were taken to avert a greater potential harm.

This defense emphasizes a balancing of interests and often raises the question of whether the harm being avoided is indeed greater than the harm caused by the illegal act. The necessity defense typically requires demonstrating that there were no reasonable legal alternatives available to the individual at the time, making their illegal actions a last resort in the face of an immediate and serious threat.

In the context of the other options, the claims of being unaware of the crime, asserting self-defense against imminent threats, and arguing that the crime was committed under duress do not align with the principle of necessity. These options pertain to different legal concepts and defenses that address distinct circumstances under which a person may not be held criminally liable.