What does the affirmative defense of necessity argue?

The affirmative defense of necessity argues that a crime was necessary to prevent a greater harm. This defense is based on the principle that individuals sometimes face situations where they must choose between two conflicting harms, and in these cases, committing a lesser crime may be justified to avert a more significant danger or evil.

In practical terms, the necessity defense asserts that the action taken, although illegal, was done to prevent a more serious outcome. For instance, if an individual breaks into a cabin to seek shelter during a life-threatening storm, the crime of breaking and entering may be seen as justified because it was necessary to avoid the greater harm of freezing to death.

This defense requires that the defendant prove that there was an imminent threat and that no reasonable legal alternative existed at the time. It emphasizes the moral choice made in desperate circumstances rather than an intent to commit a crime.