So what actually happens if I am COMPELLED to participate in a crime?

[grude]

Dastardly criminals have kidnapped my kid and threaten that unless I give them the key to my workplace which is Fort Knox and keep quiet until they have emptied the vault something bad will happen, but if I play along they will release my kid.

So how does that actually go with the cops and at trial?

[Northern_Piper]

The defence of duress may be available, depending on the criminal law of the jurisdiction where the act occurs.

Duress is a recognition by the law that a person may be committing an action which breaks the law, but is doing so under an unlawful threat of force by someone else. The hostage-taking of a close family member is one of the classic examples.

For the defence to apply, typically the courts consider how real the alleged threat was, its immediacy, and whether there were any realistic alternatives.

Coercion

[eclectic_wench]

Around here the scenario you’re describing is called a tiger kidnapping. I’ve mostly heard of it being done to bank employees. I’ve never, ever heard of one of them being arrested for it.

[Mangetout]

If you think about it, it’s not logically very different to the scenario where the bank teller hands over the cash to the robber at gunpoint. The teller shouldn’t really hand over the money to random strangers, but the situation is exceptional.

[grude]

Huh I had never heard the term tiger kidnapping before, I guess I was wondering how far duress protects you in real life as opposed to the movies.

*The only place I have encountered this scenario.

[yellowjacketcoder]

I found the section on Duress in the Illustrated Guide to Law to be informative.

[Little_Nemo]

@Northern_Piper

For the defence to apply, typically the courts consider how real the alleged threat was, its immediacy, and whether there were any realistic alternatives.

There’s also the issue of the severity of the threat. You can’t claim you were forced to participate in a bank robbery because somebody threatened to throw eggs at your house. The general rule is the crime you’re being forced to commit has to be less severe than the crime you’re being threatened with.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Northern_Piper

For the defence to apply, typically the courts consider how real the alleged threat was, its immediacy, and whether there were any realistic alternatives.

Plus what crime the defendant was forced to commit. Duress is never available as a defense to homicide.

[Pai325]

Isn’t that what Patty Hearst claimed?

[DrCube]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Plus what crime the defendant was forced to commit. Duress is never available as a defense to homicide.

Does that work in cases where you didn’t actually commit the homicide? Say, you were compelled to participate in an armed robbery where someone was killed. Usually, all participants may then be charged with murder. But if you were compelled to drive the getaway car, for example, would that still apply?

I’m also wondering how war crimes fit into all this. “Following orders” isn’t a defense, but what about “they said they would execute me if I didn’t”?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@DrCube

Does that work in cases where you didn’t actually commit the homicide? Say, you were compelled to participate in an armed robbery where someone was killed. Usually, all participants may then be charged with murder. But if you were compelled to drive the getaway car, for example, would that still apply?

Generally the felony murder rule only applies to willing participants, so yes.

[Little_Nemo]

@Pai325

Isn’t that what Patty Hearst claimed?

I think that her defense was based more on a claim of being brainwashed during her captivity. She would have had a hard time claiming she was acting under threats because the only threat would have been to herself and the prosecution made a good case that she had opportunities to escape that she hadn’t taken.

[psychonaut]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Plus what crime the defendant was forced to commit. Duress is never available as a defense to homicide.

I’ve often heard this claim, but I’ve never heard it backed up with specific reference to a particular jurisdiction’s statute or case law. Perhaps you could provide this information?

[Kobal2]

@grude

Huh I had never heard the term tiger kidnapping before

To be fair, it sounds like a terrible idea. Talk about the father having acquired a very particular set of skills, acquired over a long career :).

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@psychonaut

I’ve often heard this claim, but I’ve never heard it backed up with specific reference to a particular jurisdiction’s statute or case law. Perhaps you could provide this information?

Sure. Was there a particular one you were looking for? This New Mexico case cites a number of decisions of other states’ courts:

The duress defense has traditionally been refused for homicide. See Jackson v. State, 558 S.W.2d 816 (Mo.App.1977); State v. Toscano, 74 N.J. 421, 378 A.2d 755 (1977). We agree with the court’s reasoning in Jackson, which reiterated that the common law has steadfastly refused to recognize any compulsion, even the threat of death, as sufficient to excuse taking the life of another. The Jackson court noted that:

Legal recognition of duress as a defense to crimes other than homicide necessarily assumes a working hypothesis that a harm or crime of greater magnitude is avoided when the subjected person succumbs to the duress. This hypothesis disappears when duress is sought to be invoked as a defense in a homicide case.558 S.W.2d at 820. This analysis in Jackson was cited with approval in Wright v. State, 402 So.2d 493 (Fla.App.1981). The Wright court stated:The rationale is sound. The paucity of cases which have addressed the issue is, hopefully, a reflection that the rule that duress will never justify the killing of an innocent third party accords with the mores of our society. We unhesitatingly adopt the rule that duress is not a defense to an intentional homicide.

Id. at 498 (footnote omitted.) Other states have also rejected the duress defense in a homicide context either on the basis of common law or statute. See State v. Encinas, 132 Ariz. 493, 647 P.2d 624 (1982) (duress barred by statute as defense to either felony murder or premeditated murder); State v. Brock, 305 N.C. 532, 290 S.E.2d 566 (1982) (no degree of duress is sufficient at common law to excuse the intentional killing of an innocent person); State v. Robinson, 622 S.W.2d 62 (Tenn.Cr.App.), (reaffirming established case law that duress is not a defense to homicide) appeal dismissed, 454 U.S. 1096, 102 S.Ct. 667, 70 L.Ed.2d 636 (1981). We agree with the rationale of these cases, and reaffirm the traditional common law doctrine that duress is not a defense to homicide.

State v. Finnell, 101 N.M. 732, 737, 688 P.2d 769, 774.

I happened across a law review article which indicates a few states (Arizona, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, possible some others) have made duress an “imperfect defense” to murder, or a mitigating factor which can reduce a murder to a manslaughter.

[Isilder]

Toscano…A mobster says “I had to do what the boss said, or he would knee cap me”.

When a mobster is claiming “duress” he means a background of threats. Or even just implied, or even merely assumed, threat or risk.
The OP is asking about direct physical actions, at the same time and place… its just so much more duress than the mobster is claiming.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Yes, New Jersey has broadened the defense of duress. So what?

[Lucas_Jackson]

Sort of related…

I was watching a true crime story the other day. A guy (call him Bill) told his friend (Dan) that he was going to go beat up someone and would he come along. Dan did but when they found the guy Bill shot and killed him much to Dan’s horror. Dan ultimately went to prison for murder.

If you find yourself in this situation, is there anything you can do to stay out of trouble?

(Don’t need answer fast)

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Don’t come along. Seriously, though, if Dan took no part in the crime at all (including encouraging Bill to commit it) he shouldn’t have been convicted of anything. I assume he provided some sort of assistance or encouragement that they glossed over.

[Kobal2]

Be it before or after the fact - simply freaking the fuck out, leaving Bill on the curve never to see him again and racing home would still count as some form of accessory to murder, wouldn’t it ? Any course of action besides going straight to the cops to rat Bill out, no ?