Necessity and Duress Defenses in Criminal Law
🔹 Necessity and Duress Defenses in Criminal Law
Both necessity and duress are justification or excuse defenses used to avoid liability for crimes committed under certain conditions. They recognize that sometimes unlawful acts may be excused if done to avoid a greater harm.
1. Necessity Defense
Definition:
Necessity arises when a defendant commits a crime to prevent a greater, imminent harm caused by natural forces or circumstances (not human threats).
Elements:
The defendant faced a clear and imminent danger.
The defendant reasonably believed that the unlawful act was necessary to avoid the danger.
There was no legal alternative to breaking the law.
The harm caused by the illegal act was less than the harm avoided.
Key Point:
Necessity is a justification defense—the act was right under the circumstances.
2. Duress Defense
Definition:
Duress applies when a person commits a crime because they are threatened by another person with serious bodily harm or death.
Elements:
The defendant was threatened with imminent serious harm or death.
The threat was such that a reasonable person would have been unable to resist.
The defendant had no reasonable escape or alternative.
The defendant was not at fault in creating the situation.
Key Point:
Duress is an excuse defense—the act was wrong but the defendant is excused due to coercion.
🔹 Key Case Law
1. United States v. Schoon, 971 F.2d 193 (9th Cir. 1992)
Facts:
Protesters illegally entered a military base to protest U.S. policy. They claimed necessity defense, arguing their illegal acts prevented greater harm (nuclear war).
Issue:
Is necessity a valid defense for illegal political protest?
Held:
The court rejected the necessity defense because the harm prevented was not imminent and the defendants had legal alternatives to protest.
Importance:
Necessity does not justify crimes done to protest political policies; the harm must be imminent and direct.
2. People v. Unger, 362 N.E.2d 319 (Ill. 1977)
Facts:
Defendant escaped prison claiming duress, stating he was threatened by other inmates.
Issue:
Can duress justify prison escape?
Held:
Illinois Supreme Court allowed duress defense if defendant reasonably believed the threat was imminent and no alternatives existed.
Importance:
Shows duress can apply even in criminal contexts like prison escape if coercion is present.
3. Necessity Cases: Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, (1884) 14 QBD 273
Facts:
Two shipwrecked sailors killed and ate a cabin boy to survive.
Issue:
Does necessity justify homicide to survive?
Held:
The court rejected the necessity defense, holding that necessity is not a defense to murder.
Importance:
Sets the principle that necessity cannot justify killing an innocent person.
4. State v. Decina, 154 A.2d 343 (N.J. 1959)
Facts:
A man with epilepsy caused a fatal accident during a seizure and claimed lack of intent due to his condition.
Issue:
Can involuntary action (automatism) be a defense under duress or necessity?
Held:
Court found no duress or necessity, but highlighted involuntary acts may negate criminal intent.
Importance:
Differentiates involuntary conduct from duress and necessity defenses.
5. People v. Anderson, 70 Cal.2d 15 (1968)
Facts:
Defendant killed abusive spouse to prevent further harm.
Issue:
Does necessity or duress justify homicide in domestic abuse?
Held:
The court rejected necessity and duress defenses for intentional killing but recognized imperfect self-defense as a possible mitigation.
Importance:
Necessity and duress rarely justify homicide, especially when alternative legal remedies exist.
6. United States v. Contento-Pachon, 723 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1984)
Facts:
Defendant smuggled drugs, claiming duress because of threats from drug traffickers.
Issue:
Is duress a valid defense for drug trafficking?
Held:
Court ruled duress defense may apply if threats were imminent and no safe alternatives existed.
Importance:
Confirms duress applies even in serious offenses if coercion is proven.
🔹 Summary Table
| Case | Defense | Key Holding | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States v. Schoon | Necessity | Necessity not valid without imminent harm and no alternatives | Limits necessity defense for political protest |
| People v. Unger | Duress | Duress can justify prison escape under certain conditions | Recognizes duress in coercion contexts |
| Regina v. Dudley and Stephens | Necessity | Necessity not a defense to murder | Limits necessity in homicide cases |
| State v. Decina | N/A | Involuntary acts can negate intent but not duress/necessity | Differentiates involuntary conduct |
| People v. Anderson | Duress/Necessity | Neither justifies homicide, but imperfect self-defense may apply | Limits defenses in domestic violence killings |
| United States v. Contento-Pachon | Duress | Duress valid if threats imminent and no alternatives | Applies duress defense to serious crimes |
🔹 Conclusion
Necessity is a defense when a crime is committed to avoid greater natural harm but is limited—it cannot justify homicide or political protest crimes.
Duress applies when a person commits a crime under immediate threat from another human being and has no safe alternatives.
Both defenses require the threat or harm to be imminent and no legal alternative to the crime.
Courts carefully weigh these defenses to prevent misuse but recognize them as essential in extraordinary circumstances.
RELATED Blog
0 comments