{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.007055805003207184, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.977011494252873, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Filtering Role of Crisis in the Constitution of Criminal Excuses

This paper seeks to counter a currently popular account of criminal defences which holds that both excuses and justifications are characterised by the fact that the conduct of the actor is consistent with the standards to be expected of good citizens in the role inhabited by the actor. Its object is to restore due prominence to the role played by human frailty in core defences. The position will be advanced that a significant reason for this loss of prominence is that insufficient attention has been paid to the filtering role played by crisis. For both excuses and justifications crisis marks the moral limits within which a workable system of norm enforcement can be achieved. In each case it ensures defences are socially validated, although the nature of the validation differs according to the nature of the defence. With defences of reasonable reaction crisis helps mark the parameters of reasonableness and ensures respect for the rule of law. Crisis may also deprive individuals of their susceptibility to conform their behaviour to rules. Its major constitutive role in this regard is to ensure that this susceptibility is rooted in the characteristics of human beings generally rather the specific characteristics of the actor. In this way it gives moral focus to the way excuses may intrude simply because the state cannot reasonably demand any better, at the same time providing a mechanism for distinguishing true excuses from exemptions or defences of impaired capacity.