Defensa de elección de males en casos legales

Explicación Simple

La defensa de elección de males es cuando alguien hace algo ilegal porque cree que es necesario para evitar un daño mayor. Por ejemplo, si ves a alguien en peligro y decides romper una ventana para ayudar, podrías usar esta defensa. Pero solo funciona si realmente estabas en peligro inmediato.

Es como cuando decides correr en medio de la calle para salvar a tu perro que se escapó. Aunque es peligroso, crees que es más importante evitar que tu perro se lastime.

Ejemplo Práctico

Imagina que Juan, un activista, bloquea una carretera para evitar que se realicen abortos. La policía lo arresta por desobedecer la ley. Juan podría argumentar que su acción era necesaria para evitar un daño mayor, pero si hay una orden judicial en su contra, no podría usar esa defensa.

Penalidades

null

Texto Original del Estatuto (Inglés)

tely made contrary value choice. State v. Clowes, 310 Or 686, 801 P2d 789 (1990); State v. Ownbey, 165 Or App 132, 996 P2d 510 (2000), on reconsideration 168 Or App 525, 7 P3d 653 (2000), Sup Ct review denied Choice-of-evils defense could not exonerate defendants charged with contempt for violating injunction arising from demonstration to prevent abortions because defense is available only if defendants’ necessary conduct is not inconsistent with other provisions of law. Downtown Women’s Center v. Advocates for Life, Inc., 111 Or App 317, 826 P2d 637 (1992) Where threat of injury, if there was one, existed on day defendant was scheduled to appear in court and was conditioned on what he might do on that date, threat was “imminent.” State v. Boldt, 116 Or App 480, 841 P2d 1196 (1992) To establish choice-of-evils defense requires evidence sufficient to show: 1) defendant’s conduct was necessary to avoid threatened injury; 2) threatened injury was imminent; and 3) it was reasonable for defendant to believe need to avoid threatened injury was greater than need to avoid potential injury from illegal conduct. State v. Boldt, 116 Or App 480, 841 P2d 1196 (1992); State v. Miles, 197 Or App 86, 104 P3d 604 (2005), Sup Ct review denied Where defendant’s post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was triggered by diesel fumes and truck noises, court correctly excluded evidence about defendant’s PTSD as irrelevant because defendant’s threatened injury under choice-of-evils defense from