What does the 'defense of necessity' justify in criminal law?

The 'defense of necessity' justifies committing a crime due to immediate and urgent circumstances where the actions taken are deemed necessary to avoid a greater harm. This defense is rooted in the idea that individuals may be faced with situations where they are forced to choose between two conflicting alternatives, and the law recognizes that under these specific conditions, the actions taken, although illegal, may be excusable.

In applying this defense, individuals must typically demonstrate that they faced an imminent threat and that there were no legal alternatives available to them to prevent the harm. For example, if someone breaks into a cabin during a snowstorm to avoid freezing to death, this may be seen as justifiable under the defense of necessity, provided all essential elements can be satisfied.

The other options do not accurately describe the purpose of the defense of necessity. Negligence does not constitute a justified action under necessity; rather, it typically relates to a failure to exercise reasonable care. Breaking the law without intent does not align with the necessity defense, as this defense commonly involves intentional actions taken in response to exceptional circumstances. Finally, a crime committed for personal gain does not fit the necessity rationale, as necessity is concerned with averting a greater harm rather than reaping benefits from illegal activity.