What defense allows a defendant to be excused from liability when forced to choose between evils?

The correct answer pertains to the concept of justification, which refers to a legal defense that allows a person to be excused from liability when they act to avoid a greater harm. In situations where an individual is faced with two conflicting choices, both of which may result in some form of harm, the justification defense applies when the choice is made to prevent a more significant evil. This means that the actions taken, even if they would otherwise be considered unlawful, are deemed reasonable under the circumstances because the individual believed they were acting to protect themselves or others from imminent danger.

For instance, if a person breaks into a building to save someone who is trapped inside from a fire, their act of breaking and entering can be justified because it was necessary to prevent a greater harm—the potential death of the trapped individual. This rationale relies on the premise that society recognizes the moral high ground in certain urgent situations, where the alternative could lead to more severe consequences.

In the context of the other alternatives provided, entrapment refers specifically to a situation where law enforcement induces a person to commit a crime they would not have otherwise committed. Renunciation involves a person abandoning their criminal intent before completing a crime, which does not relate to making a difficult choice between two harms. Duress