University of Guyana

Criminology

Selina Fraser – 1037222

Question - 3.Compare and contrast alibi, affirmative, and justification defenses; mala in se and
mala prohibita crimes.
Introduction
What is an Alibi?

An “alibi” is a legal defense strategy whereby defendants present evidence that they may
not have committed a criminal offense because they were someplace else when the crime
occurred. Evidence to support an alibi defense can take the form of eyewitnesses, video
surveillance footage, or documents like mastercard receipts, workplace timecards, or hotel
reservations. An alibi defense is recognized as a legitimate defense in almost all jurisdictions,
and if successful, the defense may end in an acquittal of all criminal charges. Examples of the
defense include; an accused saying that he couldn't have committed trespass because he was
together with his wife at dinner when the offense occurred, a defendant asserting that he did not
rape a lady since he was out of town for work when the alleged crime befell or challenging
battery charge by showing that the person was looking at a movie when the crime occurred. In
most jurisdictions, defendants should provide prosecutors with written notice that they shall
present an alibi defense. A failure to undertake and do so often precludes the accused from
raising the defense. If a defendant does raise the defense during trial, a prosecutor can attempt to
refute it by: showing that the accused never gave notice of the defense, and/or challenging any
evidence that the defendant uses to aid their alibi.

What is the alibi defense in criminal law?

The legal defense of alibi means a defendant wasn't present: at the scene of the crime, or
at the time of the alleged offense. Once this is a success the defense works to exonerate the
defendant of the criminal charge. The alibi is distinctive from most other defenses utilized in
legal code in to this point that it is not an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense needs a
defendant to back up that the defense is applicable to a given charge. An accused must prove this
by a “preponderance of the evidence.” this means it's more likely than not that the defendant
encompasses a sound defense. The defense of alibi, though, isn't an affirmative defense. A
defendant doesn't have the burden to prove an alibi. An accused merely asserts the defense to
spice up a reasonable doubt on whether the defendant could are the one who committed the
crime.

To make the alibi successful the defendant’s attorney presents some evidence for the aim
of showing that the defendant wasn't present at the precise place of a criminal offense and at the
time of the crime, and attempts to point that the evidence creates a robust doubt on whether the
defendant was present at the time of the crime, thus requiring the defendant be found clean-
handed of the crime.

What is an affirmative defense in criminal law?

An affirmative defense is included when a defendant isn't denying that they committed
the alleged offense. Rather, they're admitting that they administered the act but that it absolutely
was justified for a particular reason. Thus, the act wasn't criminal. Self-defense is one common
affirmative defenses. as an example, a criminal defendant may admit and acknowledge that
they're going to have assaulted another person, but that the assault was justified because they
carried in move into self-defense. you will be ready to read more about self-defense here.
Accident Automatism Burden of Proof if you use self-defense as a defense, the burden of proof
automatically falls on the defendant. Remember that generally, the burden remains with the state
during a very criminal trial. However, Using an affirmative defense like self-defense , the
defendant then carries the burden of proof. How does this work? During a bench trial the judge
determines if the defendant has reached her burden and efficiently show that they need to be
found clean-handed by virtue of an affirmative defense (ex.: innocent by reason of insanity) In a
jury trial, all twelve jurors must unanimously find the criminal defendant acquitted by reason of
[the defense]. Either way, the charge is dismissed. Certain defenses would require a judge to
issue a legal document for the defendant to be confined to a condition ward.

Definition of Justification and Excuse

With the exception of alibi, most affirmative defenses are from either justification or
excuse. Typically, justification and excuse defenses admit that the defendant committed the
criminal act with the requisite intent, but insist that the conduct shouldn't be criminal.
Justification defense focuses on the offense. A justification defense claims that the defendant’s
conduct should be legal instead of criminal because it supports a principle valued by society.
While, An excuse defense focuses on the defendant. An excuse defense claims that although the
defendant committed the criminal act with criminal intent, the defendant mustn't be chargeable
for his or her behavior.

The defense of alibi isn't an affirmative defense. A defendant doesn't have the burden to
prove an alibi. An alibi defense is asserted to lift an affordable doubt on whether the defendant
could are the one who committed the crime. For Example, In simple terms, the prosecutor must
show the court that Jane planned the murder before effecting the act. This affirmative defense is
employed to justify Jane's behavior, which could exonerate her completely, or may encourage
the court find her guilty of a lesser charge, or limit her punishment.

Likewise, what's defense of alibi? An alibi defense could be a defense supported

information that a defendant wasn't at the scene of the crime when the crime occurred, that he
was elsewhere and will not be the one who committed the crime. Witnesses can testify and
present supporting evidence for the alibi defense.  

Crimes;

Mala Prohibita

Mala prohibita, or malum prohibitum in its singular, may be a Latin phrase which
accurately translates to, it's wron g as, or because, it's prohibited. These are acts or omissions
which don't seem to be inherently wrongful or immoral by themselves; yet, due to certain
statutes or laws prohibiting such acts or omission, they need been considered as crimes or
offenses. Hence, they become punishable under such laws. The act becomes a criminal offense
because a criminal statute made it so.

Usually, mala prohibita are crimes or offenses which don't harm people and property.
they will also include breaches of statutes or prohibitions involving minor crimes, like but not
limited to infractions of ordinances. Therefore, the sole question in determining whether or not
the identical is malum prohibitum is whether or not a statute or a special penal law is violated.
Why will, then, such statutes or prohibitions are enacted to criminalize those acts or omissions if
they're not inherently wrongful or immoral? It must be noted that the first feature of crimes mala
prohibita isn't their lack of gravity.

Nonetheless, they're acts criminalized by statute in a shot to control the final behaviors of
society. Perforce, the most objective of the state is to instill order within the society. Necessarily,
it's apt to control such acts or omissions which if remained unattended may subsequently cause
chaos to the communities generally. Then, a greater harm are going to be unavoidable. Such acts,
like illegally possessing firearms, if remained unregulated or prohibited will result into
proliferation of unlicensed guns within the hands of our citizens. it'll eventually cause harm to
our society, because the privilege of owning a gun will now not be conditioned by responsible
ownership, strict terms, and conditions.

Mala In Se

Mala in se, or malum in se, in its word form could be a Latin phrase which accurately
translates to wrong in, and of, itself. These are acts or omissions, in contrast with mala prohibita,
which don't need special criminal statutes to criminalize those acts or omission just by violating
such special laws. In mala in se, there is wrongful acts or omissions. Our society see these acts as
naturally and organically evil. Thus, they're acts and omissions which are wrong because they
violate the moral, natural, or public principles of our society. The perpetrated action itself is as
such sinister or evil. The list of those evil crimes are found and codified in our Revised legal
code, with the corresponding punishment like penalty of imprisonment and fines, capital,
afflictive, correctional, light, or otherwise. Crimes like murder, rape, and kidnapping et al. are
intrinsically evil, no matter the regulations governing the conduct. The same nature of the acts
attacks and harms our society’s very moral, natural and public principles that make them
punishable offenses.

It is the severity of the acts and omissions that the state wants to stop, eliminate, and
eradicate, with the concomitant objective to rehabilitate the perpetrators by penalizing them with
corresponding imprisonment and/or fines, because the case may be.

The Difference Between Mala Prohibita And Mala In Se

Mala prohibita are acts and/or omissions which are considered as crimes because special
statutes criminalize it. Mala in se, on the opposite hand, are acts and omissions which are
inherently wrongful and immoral no matter regulations governing their conduct. In mala in se,
intent to commit the crime is part thereof. The criminal intent needs to unite with the unlawful
act for it to be seen as a felony. In mala prohibita, criminal intent isn't a vital element of the
offense. it's enough that an act or omission has violated a special statute prohibiting such act or
omission. In mala in se, it presupposes that the person doing the crime has the criminal intent to
try and do it. When an individual murders another, it must be proven that it absolutely was his
intention to kill that individual so as for it to constitute as murder. Intent governs the crime. In
mala prohibita, it's enough that a statute or law is violated. The intent here isn't mens rea
[criminal intent] but only the will or intent to perpetrate the act.
Similarities Between Mala In Se And Mala Prohibita

The acts covered both categories are a violation of a law. We must still remember the
principle that there's no crime if there'll be no law which will penalize the identical. in this sense,
they're similar.

Mala in se are those acts that are inherently evil or wrongful in itself while Mala prohibita
are acts that don't seem to be inherently evil or wrong, they're only wrong because those acts are
prohibited and can be punishable by law. In mala in se, the prosecution must prove the evil
intent of the offender to commit against the law. Whereas in mala prohibita, the prosecution must
prove the intent to perpetrate the act, that the offender did mean commit the crime, and said act is
prohibited by law, therefore, against the law itself.

Acts mala prohibita are only wrong because there's a law that defines and punishes those
actions. Without the said law, the identical won't be considered against the law. One instance, as
mentioned above, is that the criminal possession of firearm. Mere possession isn't criminal in
nature but possession of firearms without license and without permit to hold is taken into account
criminal and illegal because they’re laws which prohibits the possession and carrying of firearms
without license and permit to hold.

Acts mala in se are acts which are seen as inherently evil. it's wrong in and of itself,
whether or not there’s no law, it is evil. Although wrong themselves, they'll not be punishable if
there aren't any laws punishing the identical, unless in another common law jurisdictions.
Conclusion
References

Is an alibi an affirmative defense? (findanyanswer.com)

Page Loading in a moment (findanyanswer.com)

Mala Prohibita Vs Mala In Se | Principles of Criminal Law | RALB Law

Affirmative Defenses in North Carolina Criminal Defense-Gilles Law, PLLC

The 17 Top Legal Defenses to Common California Crimes (shouselaw.com)

https://aizmanlaw.com/investigation-and-defenses/alibi-defense-criminal-case/#:~:text=In
%20criminal%20cases%20where%20a%20defendant%20has%2

5.1 Criminal Defenses – Criminal Law (umn.edu)