Justifications, Excuses, and Affirmative Defenses

Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization (Forthcoming)

George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 18-37

40 Pages Posted: 2 Oct 2018 Last revised: 11 Dec 2019

See all articles by Murat C. Mungan

Murat C. Mungan

Texas A&M University School of Law

Date Written: October 1, 2018

Abstract

A defendant who admits to having committed an offense may nevertheless be acquitted if he can provide a legally cognizable justification or excuse for his actions by raising an affirmative defense. This article explains how affirmative defenses generate social benefits in the form of avoided unnecessary punishment. It then asks what kind of evidentiary standards must be used in order to balance these benefits against potential social costs arising from frivolous defense claims. It thereby provides an economic rationale for the uniformity across US jurisdictions in allocating the burden on the prosecution to prove the commission of the offense, as well as the variation across states in the standards of proof they use in determining the validity of affirmative defenses. The analysis also explains why mere assertions of undeterrability should not be considered as affirmative defenses.

Keywords: justifications, excuses, defenses, affirmative defenses, judicial error, deterrence, punishment costs

JEL Classification: K0, K14, K40, K41, K42

Suggested Citation

Mungan, Murat C., Justifications, Excuses, and Affirmative Defenses (October 1, 2018). Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization (Forthcoming), George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 18-37, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3259184 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3259184

Murat C. Mungan (Contact Author)

Texas A&M University School of Law

1515 Commerce St.
Fort Worth, TX Tarrant County 76102
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
172
Abstract Views
1,209
Rank
323,991
PlumX Metrics