Self-defence and excuse

Abstract

The text deals with the difference between two types of defence in litigation: justifications and excuses. These two defences, according to John Austin (?A Plea for Excuses?, 1956-57), are mutually exclusive because justification means accepting responsibility for the act in question and claiming that it is not bad, while excuse involves accepting that the act in question is bad, but denies responsibility. I will present arguments against Austin?s viewpoint that are presented by Douglas Husak in ?On the Supplied Priority of Justification for Excuse? (2005) and Andrew Botterell in ?A Primer on the Distinction between Justification and Excuse? (2009). I will show that their reasons are inconsistent with the basic standards of self-defence, which is a paradigmatic case of justification.