Which of the following is NOT a requirement for acting under the principle of necessity?

The principle of necessity focuses on situations where an individual commits a crime to prevent a more significant harm from occurring. To successfully invoke this defense, several criteria must be met, and one of them is that the action taken must prevent a greater harm than the harm that is caused by committing the crime. This means that option D is a fundamental requirement for the necessity defense.

Additionally, for a necessity defense to be valid, there must be no reasonable legal alternatives available that could have been used to avoid the harm, which is captured in option C. If reasonable alternatives exist, the necessity defense may not be upheld, since the individual could have chosen a lawful route to resolve the situation.

The claim that the crime committed must be minor, as indicated in option A, is not a requirement under the principle of necessity. The severity of the crime is not specified in the necessity defense; what matters is the comparative level of harm between the action taken and the harm prevented. Therefore, this option does not align with the necessary components of the necessity defense, making it the correct response to the question.