150 words agree or disagree to each question

Q1,

Duress is when a person is forced to act against their own free will the threat of force of actual force and violence. (Rivera, 2019) Duress is a justification defenses requires four things to be true to be able to be used. 1. Person was in immediate danger that could possibly result in harm of serious bodily harm. 2. The threatened harm must be greater than the harm caused by the crime 3.The threat must be immediate and in escapable 4. the defendant must have become involved in the situation through no fault of his own. (Rivera, 2019) you may also use the duress defense when force or violence is used to compel him to enter a contract or to discharge. Easy way to use this defense is to prove that the above 4 were used. I was driving around town and a man forced himself into my car, held me at gun point and said drive. Once we circle the area, he forces me to commit a crime with him by robbing a bank. At which point I will use duress defense if charged with a crime. 

Intoxication defense is that focuses on the defendants inability to form the requisite criminal intent. (Storm, 2012) Intoxication can be broken down to voluntarily or involuntary intoxication. (Storm, 2012) The best way to use it is to claim you where drugged by some one while at a party. You voluntary drank but you involuntary took the other drug because you did not know someone gave it too you. If youd happen to commit a crime you couldve used the Intoxication defense. (Storm, 2012)

These defenses should relive you of the highest penalty of prison but not before its prove that you were forced to commit sed crime by what defense you are using. If be to easy to use these defenses all the time if it worked every time. 

Duress should be allowed to be used in a murder case because people in todays society are great at taking advantage of people. A perfect example which most would not consider, when a gang member is forced to go out and prove he belongs with the gang. Lets say a young man joins a gang and the leader says go out and kill this guy, gang member willing does it because in reality hed be killed himself or beat out of the gang, Which can lead to death in some cases. Therere many more cases too, woman in abusive relationships, one last beating could lead to death. 

Dixon v. United States (05-7053). (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/05-7053

Rivera, J. (2019, September 30). Duress as a Defense. Retrieved from

Storm, Lisa M. (2012). Criminal Law .

Q2.

The types of defense I decided to go with for this discussion are very common ones we see in courts today and widely used with defense attorneys to get there clients out of trouble or to lower sentences post trial.

Self-defense- most commonly used as justification defense. This justification defense can be used with cases that pertain to but not limited to assault, battery and criminal homicide (Storm, L., Criminal Law CH5). Self defense is used to state that the defendant did commit the crime but only because it was an act to save themselves, others or their property.

Insanity defense- also commonly used as an excuse defense. This excuse defense can be used with any legal matter. It is an excuse to claim that the defendant is mental unstable to stand trail and that they are mentally incapable to take full responsibility for their action in the crime. There for should be pardoned due to there mental handicap.

Further explaining how these defenses are used at trial. A defense based on justication (self-defense) focuses on the oense and deems the conduct worthy of protection from criminal responsibility. A defense based on excuse (mental instability) focuses on the defendant and excuses his or her conduct under the circumstances (Storm, L., Criminal Law CH5). Which brings up a great question as to Should these types of defenses relieve a person of his or her criminal responsibility? In my opinion I absolutely do not think that it should totally relieve the person from there criminal responsibility. My reasoning behind this is everyone should have to answer to the evidence and still stand trail even in a case of self-defense. Just because one person states they only had one choice to protect them selves we often find that there were other avenues the person in question had to take instead of committing the murder itself if it came to that. In a case of insanity there is no chance someone is that in coherent to make a choice. If that is the case, they would one never been unsupervised and two they would have been in a hospital or committed in a treatment facility to combat that mental instability instead of roaming the streets and committing such heinous crimes. Just my thoughts

With Part II and explaining the defense of duress cannot be used in cases of murder. Is this exception reasonable, or are there murder cases where this defense should be allowed? I cant say I can answer that truthfully due to not fully understanding what is duress? According to Cornell Law School, duress is when a person makes unlawful or otherwise engages in coercive behavior that cause another person to commit acts that the other person would otherwise not commit (Cornell Law School, 2020).  In my opinion what his means is having someone else commit the crime because I knowingly cannot due it. I would have to say it is not exception reasonable to allow this in a court of law. Case in point bullying I can go and text or call someone and keep telling them that if they dont like someone, they should do something about it and go and assault the individual. Now if I have the influence to have some do that I am just as guilty cause I knowingly have the knowledge that this person is going to commit the assault so I should be held liable as well for committing the crime because I influenced it.

Storm, L, Criminal Law CH.5 (pp. 119), retrieved from

Cornell Law School, 2020, Legal Information Institute, retrieved from  

Q3.

Part I

Affirmative defenses fall under the categories of justification and excuse. Choose one justification defense (self-defense, duress, etc.) and one excuse defense (infancy, mistake of fact, intoxication, etc.).Explain how these defenses can be used at trial. Should these types of defenses relieve a person of his or her criminal responsibility?

On of the most comment defenses right now would be the insanity defense. Many individuals believe that if they claim to have some sort of mental disorder that their charges will be instantly dropped or reduced in which would mean they would most likely avoid jail time and just be put into a mental institute or possibly overall free. The defense would essentially say that this individual did not know what they were doing due to their mental state and cannot recall what happened. This would immediately fall under the MNaghten insanity defense since they are claiming that they were doing nothing wrong because their mental state believed they were doing right.  We have seen many of theses insanity defenses lately when it comes down to the trial of a mass shooter sadly and many do not fall for it since they think they are faking it in order to take the easy way out. (Storm,2012)

In my opinion I feel everyone should be held accountable for their crimes whether they are small or big and there needs to be some sort of reprocution with it. Lets say someone was completlely drugged and given an illusination without  their consent and were scared and did something then I feel like that individual should not be help accountable because they were drugged by another individual and they did not willingly take it. There are just too many different types of scenerios that could change the way someone may or not be charged and mental state is the main one.

Part II

The defense of duress cannot be used in cases of murder. Is this exception reasonable, or are there murder cases where this defense should be allowed?

Duress should not be reasonable for one main reason which would be the fact that one life is not better than another. An individual is not capable of willingly commiting a murder and then claim duress defense.  A duress can work well also because during this time an individual may end up confessing to the crime that they have committed.

References:

Storm, L. (2012). Criminal law. Retrieved from