Analyze The Following Situations And Determine Whether The I
Analyze The Following Situations And Determine Whether The Individuals
Analyze the following situations and determine whether the individuals have any excuse or justification for the crimes. If you agree, state the excuse. Explain your reasoning with factual examples. As Adam leaves the bank and approaches his car, he sees his wife behind the wheel of the car with an unknown man seated next to her holding an object to her side. Another man approaches Adam and informs him that he and his partner will kill Adam's wife unless Adam robs the bank and returns to the parking lot within five minutes. He hands Adam a stick-up note and a fake gun. Adam robs the bank and delivers the money to the men. Adam is arrested for bank robbery.
Paper For Above instruction
In evaluating Adam’s actions through the lens of criminal law, it is essential to consider whether he possessed any valid justification or excuse for committing the bank robbery. Under traditional legal standards, coercion is recognized as a potential justification for criminal conduct, provided certain conditions are met. Coercion involves compelling an individual to commit an act against their will due to threats or immediate danger of serious harm or death to themselves or others (Ashworth & Horder, 2013). In Adam’s case, he was threatened with the imminent death of his wife, which constitutes a severe threat that could meet the criteria for coercion. The critical question is whether Adam genuinely believed that complying with the assailants’ demands was the only way to save his wife’s life. The coercive threat appears credible, as the unknown man explicitly stated that Adam’s wife would be killed unless he robbed the bank and returned within five minutes.
Legal precedents affirm that threats of serious harm that leave no reasonable opportunity for alternative actions can justify criminal conduct (Cox & McGarry, 2017). For example, in R v. Abdul-Hussain (1999), the court recognized that a defendant who committed acts under threats of death or grave harm could potentially be justified if the threats were credible and immediate. However, whether such a justification applies depends on whether Adam had a reasonable belief in the threat's immediacy and severity and whether his response was proportionate. Given the urgent nature of the threat and the limited options available, Adam likely believed that robbing the bank was his only recourse to save his wife’s life. Thus, this scenario aligns with the legal concept of duress or necessity, which permits unlawful acts when committed under immediate threat of death or serious injury (R v. Howe, 1987).
Nonetheless, it is important to recognize that criminal law also emphasizes the importance of balancing individual moral justification against societal interests. While Adam's actions may be excused under the doctrine of duress, critics argue that reliance on such defenses must be carefully scrutinized to prevent abuse or unjustified exemptions from criminal liability (Horder & Ashworth, 2012). In conclusion, based on the facts provided, Adam's actions appear to be justifiable under the legal doctrine of duress. He was under an immediate threat of serious harm to his wife, and his compliance was driven by a reasonable belief that no other options were available. Therefore, his bank robbery, conducted under coercive circumstances, could be legally excused due to duress, illustrating the law's recognition of moral complexities in extreme situations.
References
Ashworth, A., & Horder, J. (2013). Principles of Criminal Law. Oxford University Press.
Cox, C., & McGarry, D. (2017). Criminal Law. Routledge.
Horder, J., & Ashworth, A. (2012). Morality and criminal law: Rethinking the connection. Law and Philosophy, 31(1), 15–40.
R v. Howe (1987) AC 417.
R v. Abdul-Hussain (1999) 3 All ER 361.