The argument of self-defense absolves a defendant of criminal liability because it is based on the premise that the defendant acted to protect themselves from imminent harm. If the use of force was necessary and proportionate to the threat faced, it is considered justified under the law. This legal principle acknowledges the right to preserve one's life and safety, thereby excusing what would otherwise be considered a criminal act. However, the specifics of self-defense laws can vary by jurisdiction, including requirements for reasonable belief and proportional response.
Pretty much no.
Strict liability offenses do not require the defendant to have criminal intent, meaning they can be found guilty regardless of their mental state. Examples include traffic violations and some environmental crimes where the focus is on the action itself rather than the intent behind it.
A DEFENDANT - In criminal cases is the person accused/charged with the crime.
Yes, in a criminal trial it is always the government against the defendant.
no, motive plays no part in criminal liability.
No.
Sentencing is last step in a criminal prosecution if the defendant is found guilty.
No defendant no charges. It is done.
When they're formally charged.
civil liability
The sides in a civil trial are the same as a criminal trial. There is a plaintiff and a defendant. In a criminal trial the plaintiff is usually the jurisdictioni charging the defendant.
lawyer