 "Photo: N/A")
 "Photo: N/A")
Henry David Thoreau made civil disobedience popular, and Tim DeChristopher followed Thoreau’s words to save the planet by fraudulently bidding for federal land without the ability to pay for it. DeChristopher and his lawyers are now pursuing a “necessary evil” defense that will argue he acted for the greater good.
There is another word for a person who performs a “necessary evil”—it’s called a vigilante. Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor, but that doesn’t make stealing right. DeChristopher broke the law, plain and simple.
The U.S. district judge presiding over the case, Dee Benson, has not yet allowed DeChristopher to use the “necessary evil” defense but said he wants to hear the defense’s reasoning before making a decision on its validity. The defense included a memo and a DVD from experts in the field of climatology. The Associated Press reported that Benson said he was reluctant to “open this courtroom for a lengthy hearing on global warming.”
The necessary evil defense, in theory, is valid.
Paul Cassell, dean of the S. J. Quinney College of Law, said, “This would provide a total defense liability. If you are stuck in a snowstorm in the mountains and break into a hut for shelter and eat a loaf of bread, you may be charged with burglary.” However, DeChristopher made a premeditated decision.
DeChristopher said in an April press release, “I had hoped the wheels of justice, particularly with a new administration, would recognize the merit of my actions and their results, and not pursue prosecution. Those hopes were misplaced, and now my hopes rest on a jury of my peers.”
This sounds like an episode of “Boston Legal.”
Cassell said even if Benson does not allow the necessary evil defense, it can still be used to lighten the sentencing. DeChristopher said he had no malicious motives for committing this crime. Using the necessary evil defense card for reducing the sentence is fine, but using it as DeChristopher’s total defense is not.
Either way, DeChristopher should not be set free on the defense of acting for the greater good. It would create precedence for this sort of continued action. He broke the law, and he should pay for it.
