ABSTRACT
This chapter explores the liberating potential of one legal form, the “necessity defense.” It argues that the radical’s dilemma, which is apparent and real, can be at least partially reconciled in one important and perhaps unique application of formal law: the “necessity defense.” Alternative codifications of “reality” enter the law finding practices. An alternative, oppositional discourse enters into the determination of justice. Substantive justice makes a rare appearance. The chapter explains the dilemma faced in doing traditional law by describing the alienating process involved. It shows how an oppositional linguistic praxis is involved in the use of the necessity defense. Max Weber pointed out that a form of law that is “logically formal rationality” militates against presenting substantive issues in law finding. The alienating and estranging practice in doing traditional law is transcended, and is replaced by a genuine critical legal praxis. Demands for a critical practice are substantial. Consider, for example, the lawyer-regulars in the local court-houses.
