Decoding the Controversy Over Battered Woman Syndrome Evidence and Duress
Loading...
Authors
Carter, Kristopher
Issue Date
2025-04-01
Volume
58
Issue
2
Type
Journal Article
Language
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
It is odd we never say we are “only human” when we do something good or worthy of praise. Instead, it is what we tell ourselves to excuse our mistakes. Traditionally, the defense of duress serves to excuse conduct where external circumstances force a person to perform unlawful acts that they did not otherwise desire to do. At first blush, it seems like the type of defense that admits we are “only human.” However, the defense has developed differently in different jurisdictions. Some rationales and codifications identify duress as a justification defense, while others consider it an excuse. Legal scholars also disagree. In certain situations, illegal conduct can be justified if the benefits outweigh the harm, such as in cases of self-defense. On the other hand, an excuse admits wrongdoing but seeks to free an individual from blame because they cannot fairly be held responsible due to a unique condition beyond their control, rendering the violation essentially involuntary. Understanding the distinction between these concepts and knowing when to apply them can be crucial in determining whether an actor will face consequences or have a valid defense. Unlike the defense of insanity, for instance, which can only be classified as an excuse, or self-defense, which is generally a justification, duress is challenging to explain. This ambiguity has led to confusion regarding the admission of expert testimony supporting the defense of duress.
Description
Citation
Publisher
Creighton University School of Law