It's all about timing and refining. What's this?
"...duress is a unique defence in that it is so much more likely than any other to depend on assertions which are peculiarly difficult for the prosecution to investigate or subsequently to disprove." from English Law.
2006-07-20 21:33:25 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Education & Reference ➔ Words & Wordplay
It means that stating that anything done under "duress" is a BS way to try to escape blame. Its not often provable but is often assumed as a legit defense.
2006-07-20 21:38:37 · answer #1 · answered by Dan G 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Duress or coercion (as a term of jurisprudence) is a possible legal defense, via excuse, by which a defendant may argue that they should not be held criminally liable for actions that broke the law. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed.) defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or not act] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]." The notion of duress must be distinguished from undue influence.
A possible example of duress would involve robbing a bank in order to pay a ransom. Courts generally do not accept a defense of duress when harm done by the defendant, such as murder, was greater than the court's perception of the coercive influence. In the United States, duress can never be a defense to murder, no matter the coercion employed.
A contract entered under duress is voidable.
2006-07-21 04:53:18 · answer #2 · answered by leathersammie 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you are accused of a particular crime, say, murder. Your defense attorney can claim you were "under duress". This is difficult for the prosecution to fight, since what one person would call duress, might be just an inconvenience.
For example, you are jobless, no money, and you steal a loaf of bread to eat. Some people would do whatever they could to legally get some money to buy food, others might feel helpless and feel there is no other option than to do something illegal.
2006-07-21 06:15:02 · answer #3 · answered by tweetymay 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is a unique defense.Therefore,anyone who claims that a statement was made while under duress. Should be responsible for providing proof of said duress.
2006-07-21 05:33:10 · answer #4 · answered by Jimmythekid 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why?
Ok
How MAny times
Is that enough
or need more answers.
2006-07-21 04:45:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes
2006-07-21 21:01:16 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
again
2006-07-21 04:36:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO
2006-07-21 04:36:42 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋