Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In jurisprudence, duress or coercion refers to a situation whereby a person performs an act as a result of violence, threat, or other pressure against the person. 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]".
Duress in English law is a complete common law defence, operating in favour of those who commit crimes because they are forced or compelled to do so by the circumstances, or the threats of another. The doctrine arises not only in criminal law but also in civil law, where it is relevant to contract law and trusts law .
Duress has been defined as a "threat of harm made to compel a person to do something against his or her will or judgment; esp., a wrongful threat made by one person to compel a manifestation of seeming assent by another person to a transaction without real volition". [5] An example is in Barton v Armstrong, [6] a decision of the Privy Council ...
[1] [2] [3] It involves a set of forceful actions which violate the free will of an individual in order to induce a desired response. These actions may include extortion, blackmail, or even torture and sexual assault. Common-law systems codify the act of violating a law while under coercion as a duress crime. [citation needed]
Necessity and duress (compulsion) are different defenses in a criminal case. [1] [2] [3] The defense of duress applies when another person threatens imminent harm if defendant did not act to commit the crime. The defense of necessity applies when defendant is forced by natural circumstances to choose between two evils, and the criminal act is ...
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED; sometimes called the tort of outrage) [1] is a common law tort that allows individuals to recover for severe emotional distress caused by another individual who intentionally or recklessly inflicted emotional distress by behaving in an "extreme and outrageous" way. [2]
Per minas, in English Common Law, is to engage in behaviour "by means of menaces or threats". The term comes from Latin. Per minas has been used as a defence of duress to certain crimes, as affecting the element of mens rea. William Blackstone, the often-cited judge and legal scholar, addressed the use of "duress per minas " under the category of self-defense as a means of securing the "right ...
Thus, a justification describes the quality of the act, whereas an excuse relates to the status or capacity (or lack of it) in the accused. These factors can affect the resulting judgment which may be an acquittal, or in the case of a conviction may mitigate sentencing. An excuse may also be something that a person or persons use to explain any ...