Which defense allows a defendant to argue they were not responsible due to coercion from a third party?

The concept of duress is a legal defense that applies when an individual argues that they were compelled to commit a crime due to the threat of imminent harm or coercion from a third party. This defense acknowledges that, under extreme pressure, a person may act against their own choices and moral judgment.

In cases of duress, the defendant must demonstrate that the threat was real and immediate and that they had no reasonable means to escape the situation without breaking the law. This defense is based on the notion that the defendant's freedom to choose was effectively overridden by the fear instilled by the coercive threat, rendering them incapable of making a voluntary decision to commit the unlawful act.

The other defenses mentioned, like entrapment, pertain to situations where law enforcement induces a person to commit a crime they would not have otherwise pursued; justification relates to actions taken under circumstances that are considered to be morally acceptable (such as self-defense); and mental disease or defect refers to a condition impacting the individual’s ability to understand the nature of their actions due to psychological issues. Each of these defenses operates under different principles and circumstances than duress does, emphasizing the unique aspect of coercion that defines the duress defense.