The defense of necessity occurs when an individual has a need to break the law in order

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

The defense of necessity occurs when an individual has a need to break the law in order to prevent serious harm (Matthew Lippman, 2021). As an example, if a person encounters two people engaged in a fight and pushes one off of another because it was overheard of one threatening to kill the other.

The defense of duress occurs when an individual is coerced into committing a crime (2021). Committing a crime under duress must be involuntary, there must be a threat of death or serious bodily harm, the threat must be immediate and imminent (2021). All reasonable and available alternatives must have been exhausted, an individual cannot be the cause of generating or assist with generating any circumstances that would lead to the claim of duress (2021).

The defense of entrapment can be raised when an individual commits a crime due to a government or state official's persuasion (2021). For example, when an officer portrays themselves as a drug smuggler and convinces a person to purchase illegal drugs.

According to research performed by Paul H. Robinson and others of the fifty-two bodies of criminal law in the United States the success rates for each defense are as follows:

Necessity- Forty-five jurisdictions recognize necessity as a lesser evils crime and will include it with duress or general justification offense (Paul H. Robinson et al, 2015). Success rate is fairly low.

Duress- Fifty jurisdictions recognize duress with differing formulations of significant issues (2015). Twenty-nine jurisdictions feel one of the most important issues are that if this defense can be used only upon coercion by a serious threat (2015). Most jurisdictions treat duress as a lesser evil defense (2015).

Entrapment- Fifty-two jurisdictions recognize entrapment defense by statute or case law (2015). The most important issues being not letting predisposed offenders go free but to limit the price willing to pay to rein in police overreach (2015). Thirty-one jurisdictions take this approach (2015).