ABSTRACT
Criminal prohibitions demand obedience even in the face of compelling reasons for disobedience. Rather than engage in general moral evaluation, the criminal justice system makes its decision via an analytical prism. The voluntary act requirement, describes, in a similar manner to excuses. Automatism is also responsive to the doctrine of prior fault. Proportionality is intrinsic to notion of necessity. The trigger and reaction elements in the criminal defence template are inevitable constituents of the traditional liberal notion of responsibility. American Model Penal Code's definition of necessity has no immediacy or imminent risk requirement. Certain excuses or defence groupings are clearly grounded in individual moral or practical bases which necessarily exclude the operation of the template. In the case of affirmative defences such as duress, self-defence, and necessity crisis helps mark the parameters for the need for, reasonableness of, and proportionality of a subject's action or reaction. It encourages inappropriate doctrinal convergences between defences rooted in different claims to avoid punishment.
