1 2C H A P T E R 1 ■ U s e s o f A r g u m e n t sEven if Madison had no justification, she still might have had an excuse.
Whereas a justification is supposed to show that the act was the right thing
to do, an excuse admits that the act was wrong but tries to show that the
agent was not fully responsible for doing it. Madison might, for example,
argue that she honestly believed that Victor was going to kill her if she did
not kill him first. If she offers this only as an excuse, she can admit that her
belief was mistaken, so she had no justification for killing Victor. Her claim
is, instead, that she was not fully responsible for his death because she was
only trying to defend herself.
Excuses like this are, in effect, explanations. By citing her mistake,
Madison explains why she did what she did. If she had killed Victor because
she hated him or because she wanted to take his money, then she would have
no excuse. Her act is less blameworthy, however, if she was mistaken. Of
course, you should be careful before you shoot someone, so Madison could
still be guilty of carelessness or negligence. But that is not as bad as killing
someone out of hatred or for money. Her mistake might even be reasonable.
If Victor was aiming a gun at her, then, even if it turned out not to be loaded,
any rational person in her position might have thought that Victor was on
the attack. Such reasonable mistakes might reduce or even remove respon-
sibility. Thus, by explaining her act as a mistake, Madison puts her act in a
better light than it would appear without that explanation. In general, an
excuse is just an explanation of an act that puts that act in a better light by
reducing the agent’s responsibility.
To offer an excuse, then, Madison’s defense attorneys will need to give
arguments whose purpose is not justification but explanation. This excuse
will then determine what she is guilty of. Whether Madison is guilty of
first-degree murder or some lesser charge, such as second-degree murder or
manslaughter, or even no crime at all, depends on the explanation for her act
of killing Victor.
Several of the earlier arguments also provided explanations. The medical
examiner cited the head wound to explain why Victor stopped breathing.
The victim’s identity explained why his friends said he was Victor. The fact
that the bullet came out of a particular gun explained why it had certain
markings. The legislature’s vote explained why the killing was illegal. And
so on.
In this way, what appears at first to be a simple case actually depends on
a complex chain of arguments that mixes justifications with explanations.
All of these justifications and explanations can be understood by presenting
them explicitly in the form of arguments.
One final point is crucial. Suppose that Madison has no justification or
excuse for killing Victor. It is still not enough for the prosecutor to give
any old argument that Madison killed Victor. The prosecution must prove
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This burden of proof makes the strength
of the argument crucial. You as a juror should not convict, even if you
think Madison is guilty, unless the prosecution’s argument meets this high97364_ch01_ptg01_001-016.indd 12 11/14/13 1:51 PM
some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s). Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materiallyCopyright 201^3 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights,
affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.