Is Duress a Defense to Homicide?
When it comes to understanding criminal law, defenses can often be complex and contentious issues. One of the most significant and intriguing defense types is duress. Can duress be considered a defense to homicide, a crime that carries life or death consequences? Let’s dive into the discussion to explore the answers and possible implications.
Understanding Duress
Duress refers to a legal concept in which a person forces or coerces another into committing a crime or continuing with a criminal act through intimidation, threats, or use of force. It involves a situation where someone threatens to harm the other if they do not comply or take a certain course of action. The level of coercion can range from relatively mild to severe and is often dependent on individual circumstances.
Defending oneself against duress: Voluntary and Involuntary Manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter is considered to occur when a person intended to kill or harm the victim, but it wasn’t premeditated murder. Involuntary manslaughter happens when a person, during the commission of another offense, unintentionally and by mistake causes a deadly force.
When Is Duress a Defense?
In general, a successful duress defense might establish that the perpetrator could only have avoided committing a homicide by risking death themselves (see Table 1):
| **Key Questions | **Answer | |
|---|---|---|
| Is the alleged defender justified in believing they are going to be harmed unless they comply with the coerced act? | No | |
| Are there grounds for believing the allegation (the person causing duress) would indeed act according to their threats unless compliance occurs? | Yes | |
| Can you say that the perpetrator made genuine efforts to resist (at least initially)? | Yes |
In case A, the court cannot admit the duress argument:
- The individual committed premeditated murder before responding to the alleged threatening statements.
- If evidence can show that a lesser measure would have kept an honest man from believing further participation in the illegal deed in a reasonable individual,
they can’t successfully depend upon duress (refered to as specific moral blame or blame towards a specific wrong; *Hartley).
Source: [Source from reference list]
The test provided above is derived mainly from English common law (Sorby versus Commonwealth of Australia2009) and its associated Canadian precedents, indicating possible relevance to contemporary judicial examinations.
