Is duress always a successful defense ?

Say that person A puts a weapon against the head of person B in a room; then person A then puts another loaded gun in person B's hand and threatens to kill person B unless person B shoots the next person to walk into the room.

This is just an example, but I want to know if duress will always be a defense in this case for person A. If not then what way would it not be a good defense ?

They do that a lot in hostage movies, but the action usually involves giving information instead of murder. The victims usually resist, but fold when it's clear they finally have no other options.

A legal defense, or a moral one? I'm sure there's been precedent for this type of thing somewhere in America's case history...

(I don't think that you'd avoid conviction in the case you mentioned, although you might have your sentence reduced. I'm not a lawyer, though).

Interesting question. Would it be considered a crime if you kill the person ?

BTW, depedending on the person who enters I wouldn´t have a problem shooting at her. If it was a cool person I would try to take some reaction against the A person.

I've looked into it since my last post. Atlantis, I don't know what Brazilian laws are like, but it looks like you'd go to jail in America. Duress can be a valid defense, but when you say that you "would try to take some reaction against the A person." but only if you think the victim is "cool," you're not just admitting to being a complete sociopath; you're also admitting that the durress wasn't complete; that is, you had options, but since you didn't like your victim, you chose not to exercise them. And that would be the end of your durress defense.

It's not in the UK. Although this looks like a badly disguised homework thread.

or someone saw the movie Saw 1 or Saw 2 and brought it here in this discussion.

Wasn't 'Saw 1' just called Saw?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It's not in the UK. Although this looks like a badly disguised homework thread.

Originally posted by Gregory
I've looked into it since my last post. Atlantis, I don't know what Brazilian laws are like, but it looks like you'd go to jail in America. Duress can be a valid defense, but when you say that you "would try to take some reaction against the A person." but only if you think the victim is "cool," you're not just admitting to being a complete sociopath; you're also admitting that the durress wasn't complete; that is, you had options, but since you didn't like your victim, you chose not to exercise them. And that would be the end of your durress defense.

I´m not comparing the laws of our countries.

But if the person who enters the room is not of the best kind, like a murderer perhaps, or a corrupt politician.. I don´t know, and I had to choose between my life and his life, I would choose mine.

Originally posted by Cyber Ninja
Say that person A puts a weapon against the head of person B in a room; then person A then puts another loaded gun in person B's hand and threatens to kill person B unless person B shoots the next person to walk into the room.

This is just an example, but I want to know if duress will always be a defense in this case for person A. If not then what way would it not be a good defense ?

Legally? It's probably defensible. Most Western countries respect an individual's right to scrape and scratch in defense or preservation of their own life. Also note that the way you've worded it, Person B doesn't have to kill the next person, just shoot them. Assuming Person B has to kill the next person, a lawyer could argue forced intent and possibly get off or a reduced sentence. However, if the defense sucks, the prosecution can argue intent to kill, which is still manslaughter, even under duress. Unless the thought of being shot was so mindblowing that you couldn't evaluate good from bad, this can still be manslaughter.

Morally? Sketchy. Falls under "bad" from where I'm standing. The intent was good towards you, bad towards the next schmo who walks in. Likewise, the shooting was bad. Hence, the act was morally wrong.

This reminds me of a similar question...
What is the difference between being responsible for an act, and being at fault? Ie, you're responsible for shooting the next person who comes into the room, but it isn't your fault. You're responsible in that you physically performed the action, but you're not at fault because, had you refused to comply, you would've been killed.

Yes.

Durex is a great form of defense against STD's.

Wouldn't do much against a bullet to the head though.

What a silly question.

Those are slippery legal terms. Fault is synonymous with culpability, as in deserving of blame. Responsibility is able to make such decisions and being answerable for them. It might be your fault that you hit that car, but perhaps you were somehow unable to make such decisions (i.e. you were brain damaged prior or such).

I´m not comparing the laws of our countries.

Neither was I. Simply pointing out that since we lived in different parts of the world, the legal answer would be different for us.

And it's not for me to judge, but I can't imagine having "no problem" shooting someone in cold blood. I might do it, given this situation--really, who knows how they'd act--but I'd certainly have a problem with it.