Which of the following best describes "affirmative defenses"?

"Affirmative defenses" refer to legal arguments that a defendant can present to justify their actions or to mitigate their liability during a criminal trial. These defenses do not simply deny the prosecution's allegations; rather, they acknowledge that the defendant may have committed the act but argue that the circumstances render that act legally justified or excuses the defendant from legal culpability.

For instance, if a defendant claims self-defense, they are affirming that they did engage in an act (e.g., harming another person) but are justifying it by explaining that they acted to protect themselves from imminent harm. In this way, affirmative defenses provide a legal rationale that can lead to acquittal or reduced charges.

The other options do not accurately capture the nature of affirmative defenses. A strategy to admit guilt with an explanation mischaracterizes the intent behind an affirmative defense, which seeks to introduce justification rather than mere explanation of guilt. A type of plea bargain is unrelated, as plea bargains involve negotiations regarding the acceptance of guilt in exchange for a lesser charge or sentence. An acknowledgment of wrongdoing with no legal basis fails to highlight the essential fact that affirmative defenses are rooted in legal principles that provide justification or excuses, making this description insufficient.