Explain the 'necessity' defense, detailing the elements required to successfully argue it in court, and provide a scenario where it would be applicable.

The 'necessity' defense, also known as the 'choice of evils' defense, is a justification defense where a defendant admits to committing a criminal act but argues that it was necessary to prevent a greater harm. To successfully argue the necessity defense in court, several elements must typically be proven. First, there must have been a clear and imminent threat of harm. This means the danger was immediate and unavoidable. Second, the harm that the defendant sought to avoid must be greater than the harm caused by their criminal act. This requires a balancing of the potential harms. Third, there must have been no reasonable legal alternative to the criminal act. The defendant must have exhausted all other options before resorting to illegal conduct. Fourth, the defendant must not have substantially contributed to the creation of the emergency. If the defendant's own actions created the situation that required the criminal act, the necessity defense may not be available. A common scenario where the necessity defense could be applicable is as follows: Imagine a severe storm causes a boat to begin sinking far offshore. To save themselves and the other passengers, the captain makes an emergency docking at a private dock without the owner's permission, causing minor damage to the dock. In this case, the captain could potentially argue the necessity defense. The imminent threat was the sinking boat and potential loss of life. The harm avoided (loss of life) was greater than the harm caused (damage to the dock). There was no reasonable legal alternative (waiting for permission would have resulted in the boat sinking). And the captain did not cause the storm that led to the emergency. Therefore, the necessity defense might be successful in justifying the trespass and damage to property.