Has a Person Who Breaks the Law out of "Necessity" Committed a Crime?
The Trolley Problem
Edward is the driver of a trolley, whose brakes have failed. On the track ahead of him are five people; the banks are so steep that they will not be able to get off the track in time. The track has a spur leading off to the right, and Edward can turn the trolley onto it. Unfortunately, there is one person on the right hand track. Edward can turn the trolley, killing the one; or he can refrain from turning the trolley. What should Edward do?
Model Penal Code, Section 3.02 (1) (a)
"Conduct that the actor believes to be necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another is justifiable, provided that . . . the harm or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged."
John: The Transplant Doctor on a Mission
John has five patients who need organ transplants. Two of them need a lung; two need a kidney; the fifth needs a heart. Alice walks into John's office for her annual check-up. John kills Alice, gives her lungs to the first two patients, her kidneys to the other two, and her heart to the fifth, thus saving five lives for the price of one. Would you defend John on grounds of necessity?
John Takes Alice's Jaguar for a Spin
John, who always fancied himself as a bit of a playboy, borrows Alice's Jaguar for a joy-ride around town. While speeding down Main street, tape deck blaring, the brakes fail and he loses control of the car. The car is heading straight for an intersection where a group of 20 nursery school children are crossing with their teachers. He could let the car continue on its path or swerve into the bookshop on the corner where there is a salesperson in the window changing the window display. If he smashes into the group, he may only be charged with involuntary manslaughter. If he plows into the bookshop, he could be charged with voluntary manslaughter, perhaps even murder. John decides to run the Jaguar into the bookshop. He turns the wheel and crashes into the window display, killing the salesperson instantly. He is arrested and charged with voluntary manslaughter. He pleads necessity. If he had not crashed into the bookshop, he argues, many more people would have died. If you were the judge, would you find John guilty as charged?
Butterfield v. Texas (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1958)
Butterfield had been out drinking with a friend. He became so drunk that his friend had to drive him to his apartment in the early hours of the morning. As Butterfield entered his bedroom, someone who had broken into his apartment whacked him on the head and he passed out. When Butterfield came to, he found himself lying in a pool of blood. He realized he needed immediate medical attention. He lived alone and had no phone. He got into his car and drove himself to the hospital. On his way to the hospital he caused a minor traffic accident, was arrested, and charged with drunk driving. He pleaded necessity, but the court rejected his defense.
Sansom v. Texas (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1965)
Sansom was a passenger in a friend's car. Sansom was drunk but his friend, who was driving, was even more drunk. A police officer noticed that the car was weaving from one side of the road to the other. He signalled them to stop. The driver ignored the signal. Sansom seized the wheel and drove the car to the side of the road and brought it to a stop. The police officer charged Sansom with drunk driving. The court found him guilty as charged. Why? "If appellant is found in a predicament and it is of his own doing, he may not by such conduct claim the benefit of a defense to which he is not entitled."
State v. Dorsey, 395 A 2d. 855 (New Hampshire, 1978)
Dorsey, along with several other protestors, was arrested during a mass occupation of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant in New Hampshire. The protestors were charged with criminal trespass. Dorsey invoked the necessity defense, arguing that the evil of nuclear power outweighed the harm caused by his trespass. If you were a member of the jury, would you vote, consonant with the necessity rule, to acquit Dorsey?
Prepared: February 4, 2003 - 5:02:29 PM
Edited and Updated, February 5, 2004