The Illustrated Guide to Criminal Law
Chapter 11: Excuse Me!
Excuse pg 6: Not a defense, because not a crime
Samantha’s was a mistake of fact.
Some authorities say her mistake gives her a defense to the charge of booze theft. But they are wrong.
A defense is something that lets you get away with something that’s ordinarily a crime. Mistake of fact, on the other hand, is only useful as evidence that you didn’t have the necessary mens rea—in other words, that there was no crime in the first place.
So mistake of law is no defense, and mistake of fact isn’t really one either.
Average Joe all flustered
AVERAGE JOE
GAH! It’s enough to make you crazy!
Good idea. For the time being, anyway. So how about a little TEMPORARY INSANITY?
Average Joe accepting a cup of tea from a teapot emitting sparks
AVERAGE JOE
Well, maybe just a smidge.
Surely showing that you didn’t actually commit a crime at all counts as a defense?
That’s a “defense” in the sense that it’s something the defense lawyer would bring up if criminal charge was brought, but as I understand it, a “defense” in this context means a legal argument that, even if you did commit all the elements of the crime, you still aren’t criminally liable.
I think it’s a bit silly for Nathan to say that the authorities are WRONG though, simply because “defense” in the everyday sense of the word certainly encompasses whatever arguments a defense attorney might make, including (of course) “my client didn’t commit this crime and this is why”, and unless the authorities include it in some kind of list where the context is obvious, there’s no way to tell whether they mean “argument a defense attorney might make” or “legal defense to the crime”.