What legal principle allows a crime to be justified if committed to prevent a greater harm?

The principle that permits a crime to be justified if it is committed to prevent a greater harm is known as necessity. This legal doctrine allows individuals to take actions that would ordinarily be considered illegal if those actions were undertaken to avert more significant harm or danger. For instance, if a person breaks into a cabin to seek shelter during a life-threatening storm, their act of breaking and entering may be justified under the necessity doctrine because it prevented a greater harm: exposure to the elements.

Necessity operates on the premise that the harm avoided must be greater than the harm caused by the illegal act. Additionally, the individual must have had no reasonable alternative to committing the unlawful act, meaning they acted out of a genuine need to prevent a serious threat. This understanding reinforces the importance of context in evaluating the legality of actions taken under duress of circumstances that pose imminent danger.

In contrast, self-defense is focused specifically on protecting oneself from imminent harm or attack, while duress involves being compelled to commit a crime due to threats or coercion by another person. Consent permits an individual to allow another to engage in actions that might otherwise be deemed criminal, which does not relate to preventing a greater harm. Thus, necessity is the correct principle that validates actions taken in the face