I’m sure that everybody has seen a film/TV show where the hero’s daughter/wife/mother/etc has been kidnapped and he must kill some important person otherwise his loved one will be killed. There is no way for him to contact the police as he is being constantly watched so he kills the important person and is then apprehended.
What would his eventual fate be in the justice system?
My personal feeling that he is not responsible and should be let free. It seems to me that legally it’s similar as being forced to sign a contract under duress and therefore contract is invalid but I would be interested to hear how the legal system may handle this.
In the case of being forced to sign a contract, it’s just a piece of paper that can later be demonstrated to be legally invalid. In the case under discussion, it’s another human being that ends up permanently dead.
I don’t think there can be any justification for killing some celebrity in order to comply with the demands of a person holding your family hostage - if nothing else, you have no idea that he will in fact honour his end of the deal and that you are in fact saving one life at the expense of another.
So no. It’s not OK to deliberately kill someone to notionally save someone else. Is this one of those trick questions where you jump out and say “Aha!”, and point out that this means wars should never be fought or something?
This isn’t a trick question. I am just curious how it would be handled within the judicial system. I’m sure that most people who were in this unfortunate situation would rather kill a stranger than somebody they are emotionally attached to and I believe that they shouldn’t be punished for it.
I agree that you have no reason to believe that they would release your loved one but for this discussion I would like to make the assumption that the bad guys would release them.
I don’t see how the person doing the killing isn’t responsible for the crime. He could bring up the other criminal’s actions as matters in extenuation or mitigation.
That’s right - I think there’s confusion as to what is the actual matter of choice here; it’s not “does person X die, or does my beloved family member die?”, it’s “do I kill person X, or not?”.
I think a not guilty verdict would set up all sorts of future assassinations.
I agree that it’s natural to want to do anything to protect your loved ones, but killing people (who have loved ones of their own) should carry consequences.
What about if it’s your own life that’s being threatened? Doesn’t the immense stress of these situations reduce your ability to make decisions? What about commiting smaller crimes? Where does the limit go? If you can’t be acquitted, could you still get your penalty reduced? How much?
A bit off topic, but that doesn’t really make sense. It’s not a case of justifying the means by the ends if you don’t choose the lesser of two evils. And morally dubious? Any utilitarian worth his salt would find non-utilitarianism equally dubious. The insult! I know it wasn’t your quote, brazil84, but in the name of fighting ignorance and all I thought I couldn’t let that bit pass uncommented.
I was just thinking that. Say you are in some kind of hostage situation and someone gives you a gun with one bullet, holds another gun to your head and demands you kill a hostage?
IMHO, you would be charged with manslaughter at worst, not murder.
Of course, in reality, the “force some guy to kill a target” scenario as seen in movies like Nick of Time or Commando is highly improbable. You have no idea of your patsy will freak out and go to the police anyway or simply blow it because they have no idea what they are doing. Especially if its a high profile figure you are after. Plus you’re going to want to kill your patsy anyway which may be hard to do once they are in jail.
In any event, it’s an unneccessarily complex plan to perform a relatively simple job.
Agreed. In the real world, I’ve never heard of this happening. If it did, the prosecutor has great discretion in choosing whether or not to charge someone who claims to have committed a murder while under extreme duress. Where the defendant is particularly sympathetic and credible, and the situation in which he or she was placed was particularly shocking, I could see a prosecutor either deciding not to charge the defendant at all - which I agree is highly unlikely - or charging with some lesser form of homicide, or recommending leniency in sentencing. (The person or persons who put the defendant under duress should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, of course).
The judge would have great discretion in sentencing. And the governor (or President, if a Federal offense) would have great discretion in commuting the sentence or even pardoning the defendant.
I agree. What’s a lot more probable (in my opinion) is that a vicious gangland killer will cook up a BS duress story to try to weasel out of liability for a crime.
The answer (surprise!) will depend on the jurisdiction. At common law, the guy in the OP would be guilty of homicide, but if he were being compelled to commit any crime other than homicide by threat of grevious bodily injury or death to himself or a member of his immediate family to commit any crime other than homicide, he would be would have the defense of duress.
The common law rule is often modified by statute. In Texas, for example, duress is an affirmative defense (meaning the defendent must raise it and prove it by a preponderance of the evidence) that will excuse any criminal act if the actor was compelled to do so by threat of threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or any other. If the act is only a misdemeanor, the defendent must only prove he was compelled to do so by mere force or threat of force that would render a person of reasonable firmness incapable of resisting. However, the defense of duress is unavailable if the defendent intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly put themselves in the position in which it was probable that they would be compelled to engage in the offense.
Murder is murder no matter what the duress or circumstance and the outcome for the defendant will be dependant on due process of law. If duress was to be accepted as a defence to murder then where will it stop?
You can’t do that because in this hypothetical, the telephone has never been invented, and in any case, you, the victim, are mute because you accidentally ingested a wasp from your can of Dr Pepper. Now, is it OK to kill the stranger?
Well, you correct in the sense that “murder” has a specific legal definition. The question is whether the circumstances indicated by the OP would be legally considered “murder”.
If I shove some dude into a garbage compactor and out of malicious glee, hold a gun to your head and tell you to push the “start” button, are you guilty of murder? Would you let me shoot you in the head (after which I’ll just turn the machine on myself)?
However, the defense of duress is unavailable if the defendent intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly put themselves in the position in which it was probable that they would be compelled to engage in the offense.
above (excerpt from Pravnik). As I have said whatever your course of action the outcome of any legal thrust will be tested in a court of law. It is still murder and is up to the court to reduce it to say manslaughter. However if some dude was to in effect blackmail me to push a button on a garbage compactor and crush some poor bloke then with a threat to my life I would deduce that I was next and take the appropriate action. You will never know what you will do in this circumstance. It is, after all hypothetical.