Necessity in the context of excusing reason has changed its original form throughout history following the German, Austrian and Swiss laws. Finally, when the new law in 2013 was made official necessity was given a new form, it was defined as (simultaneous and undistorted) pardoning necessity. Change of formulation of necessity was influenced primarily by psychological and normative teachings about guilt. According to the psychological studies intent and negligence were elements of guilt, however with the normative theory comes a change where the elements of guilt, besides intent and negligence, are also sanity, conscience of unlawfulness and non-existent pardoning reason. Normative theory divides necessity as a reason of unlawfulness exclusion and as a pardoning necessity. With unlawfulness committed act is done by a being of the criminal offence, however it becomes allowed on the principle predominant interest. For the act that was described as pardoning, legal procedure shows understanding, tolerates but does not approve. Following the aforementioned, we can conclude that the very important assumption for necessity is danger and its comprehension, sources of danger, and personal and objective criterion of danger valuation, in which process today is taken in consideration objective criterion ex ante. As an neccesity assumption for danger characteristics we use no guiltiness and simultaneousness, in which process the aforementioned becomes disputable with permanently dangerous situations. We can speak of pardoning necessity only if the criminal offence could not be eliminated any other way, and there is a proportionality between the committed and threatening evil. Besides that, responsibility of exposing to danger excludes pardon, as well as if the person is guilty of the criminal offense. Point at issue with pardoning necessity is that the Croatian legislator has not determined the circle of legal goods and people which are protected, and thus it created a legal insecurity.