Which concept allows committing a crime to prevent greater harm?

The concept that permits the commission of a crime to prevent a greater harm is known as necessity. This legal principle acknowledges that in certain situations, an individual may face an imminent danger that requires them to act in a way that would otherwise be deemed illegal. For example, if someone breaks into a building to escape a bear attack, they may be able to use the necessity defense by arguing that their actions were justified because they were trying to prevent greater harm—namely, being harmed or killed by the bear.

Necessity emphasizes the ethical dilemma of weighing the lesser of two evils when there is no lawful alternative available to avert the inevitable harm. Courts generally assess the immediacy of the threat, the proportionality of the response, and whether the harm avoided was significantly greater than the harm caused by the illegal act.

Self defense, on the other hand, applies specifically to situations where an individual uses force to protect themselves from an immediate threat of violence. Duty to rescue relates to the obligations individuals may have to assist others in peril, but does not authorize illegal acts to prevent harm. Affirmative defenses are broader and encompass a variety of defenses a defendant may raise, but necessity is a specific type of affirmative defense focused on the justification of illegal acts in