This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. It does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve it by citing reliable sources. Tagged since March 2008. Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since May 2010. Its neutrality or factuality may be compromised by weasel words. Tagged since May 2010. It may not present a worldwide view of the subject. Tagged since May 2010. This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (March 2008) Criminal defenses Part of the common law series Insanity  Immunity  Mental disorder Diminished responsibility Intoxication  Infancy Automatism  Alibi Consent  Mistake Duress  Necessity Provocation  Self defense False confession  Entrapment See also Criminal law and procedure Other common law areas Criminal  Contract  Tort Property wills  Trusts and estates Evidence Portals Law  Criminal justice v  d  e Homicide   Murder Note: Varies by jurisdiction Assassination  Child murder Consensual homicide Contract killing  Felony murder rule Honor kil

ling  Human sacrifice Lust murder  Lynching Mass murder  Murdersuicide Proxy murder   Lonely hearts killer Serial killer  Spree killer Torture murder  Feticide Double murder   Misdemeanor murder Crime of passion   Internet homicide Depraved-heart murder Manslaughter in English law Negligent homicide Vehicular homicide Non-criminal homicide Note: Varies by jurisdiction Justifiable homicide Capital punishment Human sacrifice Feticide Medicide By victim or victims Suicide Family Familicide  Avunculicide Prolicide (Filicide  Infanticide  Neonaticide) Fratricide / Sororicide Mariticide / Uxoricide Parricide (Matricide  Patricide) Other Amicicide Genocide / Democide Gendercide Omnicide Regicide / Tyrannicide Pseudocide Deicide v  d  e
The United States' concept of justifiable homicide in criminal law stands on the dividing line between an excuse justification and an exculpation. In other words it takes a case that would otherwise have been a murder or another crime representing intentional killing and either excuses or justifies the individual accused from all criminal liability or treats the accused differently from other intentional killers. Contents 1 Explanation 2 Common excusing conditions 3 United States 4 References

// Explanation
The normal rule in the criminal law is that those accused of crime should be convicted of an offense only if they have committed the actus reus (the Latin for "guilty act") of an offense accompanied by the necessary mens rea (the Latin for "guilty mind") element. Thus if one person has killed another intending to do so the normal consequence would be a conviction for murder. But for a variety of different public policy reasons societies over the centuries have considered it morally acceptable and/or merely expedient for one person to kill another and to treat this killing as "justifiable" in a number of different situations. Thus the Laws of Solon forming part of early Athenian law provided that if an accused pleaded that they were justified in killing another their case would be tried in a dedicated court called the Delphinion where for example it was considered justifiable homicide to kill an adulterer caught in the act or a burglar caught in the act at night. These exceptions to liability match the modern concepts of provocation and defense of property and reflect the fact that although the terminology of justification may change over the centuries the human concepts of jealousy and the rights of ownership remain reasonably consistent as potential excuses.
In deciding when intentional killings should be treated as "justifiable" gove

rnments are balancing different sets of interests. On the one hand states usually accept some form of practical responsibility to protect their citizens from harm. In more modern times this reflects a social contract where allegiance is rewarded by the provision of policing and other civil defense systems and the apparatus of redress for injuries suffered through a court system. In the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 3 states that everyone has the right to life liberty and security of person and many constitutions offer protection for "life" which presumably even applies to those who have broken the law. Yet more modern cultures also value and respect individual autonomy and wish to avoid unduly restricting an individual's freedom of action and refrain from interfering in a citizen's life unless it is absolutely necessary. Where the balance is struck will be reflected in which situations are allowed to become excuses and result in an immunity and those situations which merely exculpate i.e. allow special treatment either by reducing the charge to one less serious or by reducing the sentence. Hence in eighteenth century English law it was considered a justifiable homicide if a husband killed a man "ravishing" or raping his wife (Blackstone Wm. at p391) but most modern English law jurisdictions treat this as only a circumstance that will mit