•  
  •  
 

Abstract

This Note considers the applicability of the necessity defense in criminal prosecutions of parents and deprogrammers. Part I explores the conflicting policies that underlie the traditional necessity defense, and suggests that courts replace their unitary approach to necessity with a "choice of evils" defense - for actors reasonably attempting to avoid a greater evil - and a "compulsion" defense - for actors reacting understandably to the pressure of circumstances. Part II applies these defenses to deprogramming cases, and concludes that rarely may they be advanced successfully.

Share

COinS