That a person satisfies the culpability requirements of an offense (discussed in Chapter 4) typically will be enough to establish the blameworthiness for one’s rule violation that makes criminal liability appropriate. Nonetheless, this presumption of blame may be rebutted by showing that, at the time of the offense, the perpetrator had a “disability” that excuses the person from responsibility for the offense. A person may be excused through any of the general disability excuse defenses-insanity, immaturity, involuntary intoxication, or duress. 1 An insane arsonist, for example, may have intended to burn the building (a culpability requirement of arson), yet the offender’s insanity may render him or her blameless for the offense. While assumptions of sanity, maturity, sobriety, and absence of coercion normally are correct and applicable in most cases, in the unusual case a person may have a disability-insanity, immaturity, involuntary intoxication, or coercion-and its effects may be such that he or she cannot reasonably be expected to have avoided the criminal violation.