By shifting the burden of proof, you mean that instead of prosecution proving that you've actually done something illegal, you are in fact admitting to it and trying to prove that it was a justifiable or allowable action, according to the law?srothstein wrote:I believe you have answered your own question. If the law specifically allows you to go to trial (a defense requires a trial to be effective) you must have broken the law, though perhaps in an allowable way.ScottDLS wrote:I undertstand your point re: handog, but what about CHL in 1996? I believe this definition of "breaking the law" is subjective. If I clearly, legally, have a "Defense" at the time I commit an act, like carrying concealed on my person with CHL in 1996... am I "breaking the law"? In order to convict me at trial, the prosecution would have to refute my "Defense" beyond a reasonable doubt.
If it was an exception to the law or the law was not applicable (such as unlawfully carrying is not applicable to a CHL), then you would not have broken the law.
I don't see anything subjective about the term breaking the law. All a defense does is shift the burden of proof around a little bit.
For instance, shooting someone is always illegal, but under legally prescribed circumstances one may prove that the law exempts them from criminal prosecution. Defense to prosecution is not a measure of innocence, but culpability?