What laws are there relating to crimes committed under duress?

I caught part of a Criminal Minds rerun in which a vengeful small town resident kidnaps the three daughters of three men he hates, holds them hostage, and tells them that unless any two of them murder the third, he will kill all three.

They do.

This reminded me that I (think I’ve) read about real life cases in which people were still prosecuted for crimes (they claim were) committed under duress. In many, I’m sure that the state simply did not believe the duress claims, but that got me wondering: what laws are there, in general, about duress crimes?

Duress is a defense, like self-defense.

Generally, to establish duress a defendant must show that he acted under an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, that he had a well-grounded fear that the threat would be carried out, and that he had no reasonable opportunity to escape or inform the police. But the elements, taken from the common law, vary a bit from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I believe it is not a defense to homicide in most places.

Example statute from NY:

§ 40.00 Duress.

  1. In any prosecution for an offense, it is an affirmative defense
    that the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was
    coerced to do so by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful
    physical force upon him or a third person, which force or threatened
    force a person of reasonable firmness in his situation would have been
    unable to resist.
2. The defense of duress as defined in subdivision one of this section

is not available when a person intentionally or recklessly places
himself in a situation in which it is probable that he will be subjected
to duress.

Hollywood aside, it is very rarely an issue in real life. I was a prosecutor from 1995-2001, and have been a magistrate since then. I’ve never had it raised in any case with which I’ve been involved, nor have I heard of it ever being raised as a defense by any lawyer I know.

As a non-lawyer, the key problem I see with claiming duress as a defense is that it is based on what a reasonable person would do in the situation. It’s not enough to show just any duress - you have to show sufficient duress that the courts agree that you couldn’t have done much else.

I haven’t seen the show given in the OP, but my guess is that the prosecution would start asking things like “Why not call the police? Why not fake the death of one person instead of really doing it?” The prosecution might even argue that the threat to kill the daughters was just a bluff and should have been treated that way.

I have used duress’ cousin necessity before, but agree that duress as a defense is in real life very rare.

In the episode, the man kidnaps the three girls, (obviously takes away their cell phones, etc) and locks them in a metal room from which they cannot escape. Inside the room, there is only the three of them. If they choose one of the three to die, he will let the other two out. Otherwise, he will kill them all. When they finally choose one, he throws in a hammer, forcing them to kill her themselves (whereas the girls had obviously expected that he would do the killing.) And, when one of them finally commits the act, he lets them go, just like he said.

Just letting you know the full premise.

Reminds me of a story from a few years ago where some thugs forced a son to rape his mother at gunpoint. I don’t think that he was prosecuted, and if he were, duress probably would have been the defense put forward.

The reason that duress is probably rarely actually used in court is that prosecuting attorneys probably aren’t going to prosecute if they feel that an otherwise-would-be-crime was committed under duress.

The reason it’s rarely used in a criminal context is that it’s an affirmative defense; in order to avail yourself of it, you have to admit that you committed the underlying act. In the criminal context, defendants very rarely stipulate to anything, particularly of the “yes I did it” variety, unless they’re pleading guilty anyway.

So, necessity and duress are cousins, and necessity is the mother of invention. What relationship exists between duress and invention?

Dunno, but its probably only legal in Kentucky

First cousins once removed, of course.

The show’s use of the defense in relation to murder seems likely flawed (but possible, 50 states and all that).

http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/crim/crim13.htm

Not possible. It’s a fairly well established principle at common law that duress and necessity do not excuse intentional homicides.