In spite of the necessity to be common for all parties, the essence of misrepresentation and duress in terms of the English law and the UAE law differs considerably. Misrepresentation and duress have their own definitions, types, judgments, etc. Necessity involves a choice between two bad alternatives that could not be avoided, which arose from the circumstances rather than the actions of a specific person.The current paper aims at discussing the peculiarities of misrepresentation and duress as the concepts of any contract law that touch not only the legal aspects of a case but focus on significant ethical aspects. The main difference is that duress means that the defendant committed a crime because someone directly forced them to do it. Sometimes courts combine these defenses, but technically they are separate.
The main response to either defense is that the defendant had another option to avert the harm. Both of them are based on a defendant being forced to commit a crime to avoid serious harm. Many people confuse the defense of duress with the defense of necessity.
The Difference Between Duress and Necessity Sometimes the prosecution will defeat a defense of duress by showing that the victim could have simply left the area or stopped the interaction with the person making the threat. The defendant needs to present evidence that they had no other way to escape the threat. With no reasonable opportunity to escape the threat.Through the words or actions of another person.A reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm.Being an especially timid person or being fearful because of past interactions with the person making the threat will not be enough to support the defense. This means that the judge and jury will evaluate the evidence according to an objective standard. The defendant’s fear must be reasonable and specific to the situation. Sometimes a defense of duress can arise from a threat to someone close to the defendant, but usually it involves the defendant directly. The threat must occur in the present, rather than the past, although sometimes a threat of future harm may support the defense. If someone held a gun or a knife to the defendant, this will meet the requirement. The threat does not need to be explicitly stated. The court may simply make sure that the defendant’s evidence is sufficient for the instruction and allow the jury to decide which side has presented stronger evidence.Ī defendant may face an imminent threat of death or serious harm through the actions or words of another person. The prosecution may not need to disprove duress beyond a reasonable doubt if the defense produces sufficient evidence to raise it. The judge will need to decide whether a jury instruction on duress is appropriate. Like self-defense, duress is an affirmative defense, so the defendant must present evidence of each element. A defendant also cannot present a duress defense if they were responsible for getting into the situation that resulted in the threat of death or serious injury. States generally have found that killing someone else to avoid being killed is not a sufficient excuse for homicide. Duress is generally not a defense to murder, but a few states may reduce the crime to manslaughter.ĭuress often is not an appropriate defense for murder or other serious crimes.
0 kommentar(er)
