What does this mean:
In some sense, the necessity defense allows us to act as individual legislaters, amending a particular criminal projevision or crafting a one time exception to it, subject to court review, when a real legislature would formally do the same under those circumstances.
Then they give an example of a prisoner escaping a burning jail and that is an exception.
Does this apply to the 9th circuit or are they talking about individual people? I am not experienced reading stuff like this and it is a little teensy bit hard to get the gist. (I'm good at white papers though--go figure.)