K. Military orders: Closely related to the defense of duress is the defense that one was obeying military orders issued by a superior .It is generally agreed that if the defendant neither knows nor has reason to know that the act ordered is unlawful, he cannot be convicted if the act is a crime. Conversely, it is agreed that if the defendant does know that the act ordered is unlawful, he may be convicted if he performs it. Thus the most common form of the Nuremberg Defense (“I was only following orders….”) is unavailing.
L. Guilt of coercer: Even though the person subjected to duress may have a valid defense on that ground, this will not absolve the person who did the coercing. The latter is likely to be convicted based on general principles of principal-and-agent liability, just as one may be convicted of murder if one induces a child or mental incompetent to carry out the killing. See L, p.
M. Relation to “choice of evils” or “necessity” defense：The defense of “necessity,” discussed in the next section, is similar to that of duress, except that the source of pressure comes not from a human being, but from circumstances or events (e.g., a shipwreck). The basis of the necessity doctrine is that the defendant may, in some circumstances, choose the “lesser of two evils,” even if that evil is a crime. If the defendant is pressured by a human being, but is unable to make out a traditional duress defense (e.g., the threat is to destroy the defendant’s property, rather than harm her person), may the defendant employ a “choice of evils” defense?
1. Model Penal Code allows: Most court have been reluctant to allow the defense of necessity where the coercion comes from a human source. But the Model Penal Code explicitly provides, in §2.09(4), that the defendant may employ the “choice of evils” defense of §3.02 even where the motivating force is another human being, and the duress defense would not be available.
用翻译器翻译的亲们希望能够把话帮忙履顺了，我就是因为看不明白翻译器翻译的内容才来求译的~~~