第三部分 辯護

PartThree

Defense第三部分辯護1THEINSANITYDEFENSEGeneralpurposeIfDcanshowhewasinsane(精神病)atthetimehecommittedacriminalact,hemaybeentitledtotheverdict(判決)“notguiltybyreasonofinsanity.”2InsanitydefenseemergesindrownedkidscaseSANFRANCISCO-LaShuanHarristookherthreechildrenonatrainfromOaklandintoSanFranciscoonOct.19,2005.Sheboughtthelittleboyshotdogs,andtheywalkedalongFisherman’sWharf.ThenHarrisundressedthethreeboys,ages16months,2and6,anddroppedthematatimeoverthelowrailingintochillySanFranciscoBay,policesay.Sheknewtheycouldn’tswimandthoughtshewassendingthemtoheaven.Godhadcommandedhertosacrificeherthreeboys,hermostpreciouspossessions,Harrislatertoldpsychiatrists.Passersbysaidsheseemeddazed（茫然的）,disoriented（迷失方向的）.3Harriswaschargedwiththreecountsofmurderandhaspleadednotguiltybyreasonofinsanity.HerfamilysaysHarrisismentallyillandneedstobetreatedinamentalinstitution,ratherthanincarceratedinaprison.ButprosecutorLindaAllensaysthat’sadecisionforajury.Legalexpertssayprovinglegalinsanityisalwaysatallorder.“Theburdenofproofisonher,”saidPeteKossoris,aformerVenturaCountyprosecutor.“Shehastoshowthat,byreasonofsomementaldefectordisease,shedidn’tknowthenatureofwhatshewasdoingorthatitwaswrong.”4Thecaseisatragedy,concededAllen,theprosecutor,butaddedthatHarrismustbepunishednonetheless.“Shewalkedaroundthepier（碼頭）andcriedbecauseshelovedherchildren,showingthatsheunderstoodshehadkilledthemandthattheyweregone,”Allensaidincourtdocuments.“Evenifdefendantthoughtshewassendingherchildrentoheaven,shewasdoingsobykillingthem.”5LaShuanHarris,thewomenwhothrewher

threechildrenintotheBay

inOctoberof2005wasfound

notguiltybyreasonofinsanity

bythejudgehearinghercase.Earlier,shewasfoundguiltyofseconddegreemurderbythejury.Inherstatement,theJudge,KayTsenin,said:"Thecourtfindsthatthedefendant,LaShuanHarris,hasbeenprovenbythepreponderanceofevidencetohavebeenincapableofknowingthenatureandqualityofheracts.''

6Thesanityphasewastriedtothecourt,whichfounddefendantnotguiltybyreasonofinsanity,sentencedhertoconcurrenttermsof25yearstolifeonthemurderconvictions,andorderedhercommittedtoNapaStateHospitaltoserveherterms.7THEINSANITYDEFENSEGeneralpurposeMandatorycommitment(強制義務):IfDsucceedswiththeinsanitydefense,hedoesnotwalkoutofthecourtroomfree.Invirtually(事實上)everystate,anyDwhosucceedswiththeinsanitydefensewillbeinvoluntarilycommittedtoamentalinstitution.Notconstitutionallyrequired:Virtuallyeverystaterecognizessomeformoftheinsanitydefense.However,thefederalconstitutionprobablydoesnotrequire（要求）

thestatestorecognizeinsanityasacompletedefense.Limitsuseofmentaldisease:Inmanystates,theinsanitydefenseiscoupledwitharulethatnoevidencerelatingtomentaldiseaseordefect（缺陷）

maybeintroducedexceptaspartofaninsanitydefense.8THEINSANITYDEFENSEExample:Dischargedwithknifinghiswifetodeath.Inmanystates,Dwillnotbepermittedtoshowthathismentaldiseasepreventedhimfromforminganintenttokillher.Inthesestates,D’ssolemethodforshowingtherelevanceofhismentaldiseaseisviatheinsanitydefense.9THEINSANITYDEFENSETestsforinsanity

M’Naghten“rightfromwrong”rule麥納頓規(guī)則“Irresistibleimpulse”test不能控制規(guī)則ModelPenalCodestandard模范刑法典規(guī)則

Thefederalstandard聯(lián)邦規(guī)則10THEINSANITYDEFENSEM’Naghten“rightfromwrong”rule麥納頓規(guī)則Nottoknowthenatureandqualityoftheacthewasdoing;orifhedidknowit,thathedidnotknowhewasdoingwhatwaswrong.11THEINSANITYDEFENSEAtleasthalfthestatesapplytheso-calledM’Naghtenrule:Dmustshow:a.Mentaldiseaseordefect:Thathesufferedamentaldiseasecausingadefectinhisreasoningpowers;andb.Result:Thatasaresult,either:(1)hedidnotunderstandthe“natureandquality”ofhisact;or(2)hedidnotknowthathisactwaswrong.12THEINSANITYDEFENSEExample1:Dstrangles（扼死）V,hiswife,believingthatheissqueezingalemon（檸檬）.EvenundertherelativelystrictM’Naghtentest,Dwouldprobablyberuledinsane,onthegroundsthathedidnotunderstandthe“natureandquality”ofhisact.13THEINSANITYDEFENSEExample2:Disattractedtobrightobjects,andthereforeshoplifts（從商店中偷商品）jewelryconstantly（經常）,thoughintellectually（智力上）heknowsthatthisismorallywrongandalsoillegal.DisnotinsaneundertheM’Naghtentest,becauseheunderstoodthenatureandqualityofhisact,andknewthathisactwaswrong.Thefactthathemayhaveactedunderan“irresistible（不能壓制的）impulse（沖動）”isirrelevantundertheM’Naghtenrule.14THEINSANITYDEFENSE“Irresistibleimpulse”test不能控制規(guī)則Manystates,includingabouthalfofthosestatesthatfollowM’Naghten,haveaddedasecondstandardbywhichDcanestablishhisinsanity:thatDwasunabletocontrolhisconduct.Thisissometimeslooselycalledthe“irresistibleimpulse”defense.Example:OnthefactsofExample2above,Dwouldbeacquitted（無罪）,becausealthoughheunderstoodthatitwaswrongtoshopliftshinythings,hewasunabletocontrolhisconduct.15THEINSANITYDEFENSEModelPenalCodestandard模范刑法典規(guī)則:TheModelPenalCodeallowsDtobeacquitted（無罪）if“asaresultofmentaldiseaseordefecthelackssubstantialcapacityeithertoappreciate（鑒別）thecriminalityofhisconductortoconformhisconduct

to（遵守）therequirementsofthelaw.”16THEINSANITYDEFENSEThefederalstandard聯(lián)邦規(guī)則Themodernfederalstandard(inforcesince1984)setsaverystringent（嚴厲的）standardforfederalprosecutions.Dwinsonlyif“asaresultofaseverementaldiseaseordefect,[he]wasunabletoappreciate（befullyawareof）thenatureandqualityorthewrongfulnessofhisacts....”ThisisessentiallytheM’Naghtenstandard.ThefactthatDwasunabletoconform（遵守）hisconducttotherequirementsofthelawisirrelevant—inotherwords,infederalsuits,thereisno“irresistibleimpulse”defense.17THEINSANITYDEFENSERaisingandestablishingthedefenseWhoraisesdefenseBurdenofpersuasionPsychiatric（精神病學的）examinationJudge/juryallocation18THEINSANITYDEFENSEWhoraisesdefenseInnearlyallstates,theinsanitydefenseisanaffirmativedefense(積極抗辯).Thatis,Disrequiredtocomeforward（自愿）withevidenceshowingthatheisinsane—onlythendoesD’ssanityenterthecase.19THEINSANITYDEFENSEBurdenofpersuasionInhalfthestates,theprosecutionmustprovebeyondareasonabledoubtthatDisnotinsane.Intheremainingstates,Dbearstheburdenofprovinghisinsanity,butonlybya“preponderanceoftheevidence優(yōu)勢證據.”Inthefederalsystem,theruleiseventougheronD:Dmustproveinsanityby“clearandconvincingevidence.”20THEINSANITYDEFENSEPsychiatric（精神病學的）examinationAdefendantwhodemonstratesthatsanitywillbeasignificantfactorathistrialhasaconstitutionalrighttohavetheassistanceofapsychiatrist精神病醫(yī)生

atstateexpense.Court-appointedexpert:WhetherornotapsychiatristisappointedforD’sbenefit,inmoststatesthecourthasthepowertoappointatheoreticallyimpartial(公平的)psychiatristtoconductanindependentexaminationofD,theresultsofwhichwillbeadmissibleatthetrial.Often,thisappointmentisdoneattherequestoftheprosecution.21THEINSANITYDEFENSEJudge/juryallocationIfthecaseistriedbeforeajury,itisthejurythatwillhavethetaskofdecidingthemeritsofD’sinsanitydefense,basedoninstructionsfromthejudge.DecisionlefttojuryCourtstryhardtoensurethattheultimatedecisionisinfactmadebythejury,notbythepsychiatricexpertwitnesses.Thejuryisalwaysfreetodisregardordisbelievetheexpertwitness’evaluationofD’scondition.22THEINSANITYDEFENSEXYYchromosome染色體defenseSomestatesallowDtobuttress支持hisinsanitydefensebyshowingthathehasacertainchromosomalabnormality異常,theso-called“XYYchromosomedefense,”sinceXYYmenaremuchmorelikelytocommitcertainkindsofcrimesthanmenwithnormalchromosomes.23THEINSANITYDEFENSECommitment（監(jiān)管）followinginsanityacquittalInnearlyeverystate,ifDisacquittedbyreasonofinsanity,hewillendupbeingcommittedtoamentalinstitution.Insomestates(andinthefederalsystem)thejudgeisrequiredbylawtocommit（交押）Dtoamentalinstitution,withoutevenahearingastopresentsanity.Inotherstates,thejudgeorthejuryconductsahearingtodecidewhetherDisstillinsaneandinneedofcommitment.24THEINSANITYDEFENSECommitmentfollowinginsanityacquittalRelease:OnceDhasbeencommittedtoaninstitutionandpetitions請求forrelease釋放,thereleasedecisiontypicallydependson:(1)whetherDcontinuestobeinsane;and(2)whetherDcontinuestobedangerous.25THEINSANITYDEFENSEFitnesstostandtrialTheinsanitydefensecanalsobeasserted宣布asagroundsfornottryingDonthegroundsthatheisincompetentto不合格standtrial.Ingeneral,Dwillbeheldtobeincompetenttostandtrialifheisunabletodobothofthefollowing:(1)understandtheproceedingsagainsthim;and(2)assistcounselinhisdefense.Burdenofproof:Manyjurisdictionsplacetheburdenofproof

astoincompetenceuponthedefendant.TheU.S.SupremeCourthasheldthatitisnotunconstitutional

forthestatetoplaceuponDtheburdenofprovingbyapreponderance優(yōu)勢oftheevidencethatheisincompetenttostandtrial.26THEINSANITYDEFENSEInsanityattimesetforexecutionIfthedefendantisinsaneatthetimesetforhisexecution,hemaynotbeexecuted.ExecutionofaprisonerwhoiscurrentlyinsaneviolatestheEighthAmendment’sbanoncruelandunusualpunishment.27QuizJackT.Ripperknowsthatkillingapersonislegallywrong.Nevertheless,heslashes(砍)thethroatsofseveralprostitutesforthepurposeofkillingthem.HedoesthisbecausehebelievesthathasbeeninstructedbyGodto“killallprostitutes（妓女）---theyareevil.”JacktriestoresistGod’sinstructions(becausehereallydoesn’tenjoythekilling),butispowerlesstopreventhimselffromobeyingwhathebelievesareGod’sorders.28QuizIsJackinsaneundertheM’NaghtenRule?NoIsJackinsaneunderthefederalinsanitystatute?NoIsJackinsaneundertheMPC?YESUnderthefederalinsanitystatute,whichparty(Jackorprosecution)willbeartheburdenof(1)raisingtheissueofsanity;Jackand(2)provingsanity/insanity?prosecution29GunmansentpackagetoNBCNews“Ididn’thavetodothis.Icouldhaveleft.Icouldhavefled.Butno,Iwillnolongerrun.It’snotforme.Formychildren,formybrothersandsistersthatyouf---,Ididitforthem,”Chosaysononeofthevideos.“Whenthetimecame,Ididit.Ihadto.”30“Youhadahundredbillionchancesandwaystohaveavoidedtoday,”Chosays.“Butyoudecidedtospill濺出myblood.Youforcedmeintoacornerandgavemeonlyoneoption.Thedecisionwasyours.Nowyouhavebloodonyourhandsthatwillneverwashoff.”31?Youhavevandalizedmyheart,rapedmysoulandtorchedmyconscience.Youthoughtitwasonepatheticboy’slifeyouwereextinguishing.Thankstoyou,IdielikeJesusChrist,toinspiregenerationsoftheweakandthedefenselesspeople.?Doyouknowwhatitfeelstobespitonyourfaceandtohavetrashshoveddownyourthroat?Doyouknowwhatitfeelsliketodigyourowngrave?

Doyouknowwhatitfeelsliketohavethroatslashedfromeartoear?Doyouknowwhatitfeelsliketobetorchedalive?

Doyouknowwhatitfeelsliketobehumiliatedandbeimpaledupononacross?Andlefttobleedtodeathforyouramusement?Youhaveneverfeltasingleounceofpainyourwholelife.Didyouwanttoinjectasmuchmiseryinourlivesasyoucanjustbecauseyoucan??Youhadeverythingyouwanted.YourMercedeswasn’tenough,youbrats.Yourgoldennecklacesweren’tenough,yousnobs.Yourtrustfundwasn’tenough.YourvodkaandCognacweren’tenough.Allyourdebaucheriesweren’tenough.Thoseweren’tenoughtofulfillyourhedonisticneeds.Youhadeverything.32DiscussIsChoSeung-Hui

insaneundertheMPC?33DIMINISHEDRESPONSIBILITY減輕責任WhereandhowusedUnderthedefenseof“diminishedresponsibility,”anon-insaneDarguesthathesufferssuchamentalimpairment損傷thatheisunabletoformulate規(guī)劃制定therequisite（必要的）intent.34DIMINISHEDRESPONSIBILITY減輕責任Homicide謀殺casesThedefenseisallowedmostofteninhomicidecases,usuallyoneswhereDischargedwithfirst-degreemurderandattemptstoreduceittosecond-degreebyshowingthathewasincapableoftherequisitepremeditation預謀.Firstdegreemurderisdefinedintheparticularjurisdictionasa“willful,deliberateandpremeditatedkilling.”35DIMINISHEDRESPONSIBILITY減輕責任Morethanhalfofthestatesreject（拒絕）thedoctrineofdiminishedresponsibility.Usually,theydosobyholdingthatnoevidencethatDsuffersfromamentaldiseaseordefectmaybeintroduced,exceptpursuant依照toaformalinsanitydefense.36AUTOMATISM自動狀態(tài)DefensegenerallyUnderthe“automatism”defense,Dtriestoshowthatamentalorphysicalconditionpreventedhisactfrombeingvoluntary.Example:WhileDisinbedwithhiswife,V,hestrangles扼死

her.Dshowsthatthestranglingoccurredwhilehewasinthethroes劇痛ofanepileptic癲癇seizure發(fā)作,andthathewasnotconscious意識到ofwhathewasdoing.Ifthefact-finder實情調查者believesthisstory,Dwillbeacquitted（無罪）,becausethestranglingwasnotavoluntaryact.37AUTOMATISM自動狀態(tài)GenerallyallowedMostcourtsallowtheautomatismdefenseasadistinctdefensefromtheinsanitydefense.ModelPenalCodeallowsModelPenalCodeeffectivelyrecognizesthedefense:Disnotliable（有責任）ifhedoesnotcommita“voluntaryact,”anda“voluntaryact”isdefinedsoastoexcludea“reflex反射orconvulsion痙攣”ormovementduring“unconsciousness.”38AUTOMATISM自動狀態(tài)Othervariants變異型Apartfromthecommoninstanceofepilepticseizures,theautomatismdefensemightbeusedwhere:(1)Dlapsed墜入intounconsciousnessbecauseoflowbloodsugar低血糖;(2)DwasunabletocontrolheractionsbecauseofPremenstrualSyndrome經前的綜合癥

;or(3)DwasunabletocontrolhisconductbecauseofPostTraumaticStressDisorder(PTSD)創(chuàng)后壓迫癥sufferedastheresultofwartimeexperiences.39INTOXICATION醉酒狀態(tài)VoluntaryintoxicationInvoluntaryintoxicationAlcoholism酒精中毒andnarcotics麻醉藥addiction40INTOXICATION醉酒狀態(tài)VoluntaryintoxicationVoluntaryself-induced自己誘導的intoxicationdoesnot“excuse”criminalconduct,ingeneral.Example:Ddecidestorobabank.Normally,hewouldbetootimid膽小todoso.However,hetakesseveraldrinkstoincreasehiscourage,andgoesoutanddoestherobbery.ThefactthatDwaslegallyintoxicatedwhenhecommittedtherobberywillbecompletelyirrelevant.41INTOXICATION醉酒狀態(tài)EffectonmentalstateAlthoughvoluntaryintoxicationisnotan“excuse,”itmaypreventDfromhavingtherequiredmentalstate.Ifso,Dwillnotbeguilty.General/specificintentdistinctionInacrimeof“generalintent,”intoxicationwouldneverbeadefense.Inacrimerequiring“specificintent”,Dwouldbeallowedtoshowthatintoxicationpreventedhimfromhavingtherequisitespecificintent.Example:IfDwaschargedwithassault（攻擊）withintenttokill,hecouldshowthathewastoodrunktohaveanintenttokill.42INTOXICATION醉酒狀態(tài)ModerntrendButmoderncourtsusuallydon’tdistinguishbetweengeneralandspecificintent.Instead,moderncourtsgenerallyallowDtoshowthathisintoxication,eveninvoluntary,preventedhimfromhavingtherequisite（必要的）mentalstate.MPC:self-inducedintoxication“isnotadefenseunlessitnegativesanelementoftheoffense”.43INTOXICATION醉酒狀態(tài)Pre-intoxicationintentthefactthatD’sdrunkennesspreventedhimfromhavingtherequisiteintentatthetimeoftheactusreuswillnotnecessarilygethimoffthehookifhehadtheintentearlier.44INTOXICATION醉酒狀態(tài)Statemayopt選擇outofallowingthistypeofevidenceAlso,statesarefree(constitutionallyspeaking)tolegislatethatD’sintoxicationshallnotbeadmittedasevidencenegating（否定）therequiredmentalstate.45Example:D,sober,decidestoplaceabombunderV’scar,inthehopesthatVwillbeblownup.Dpreparesthebomb.Dthengetsdrunk.Inhisdrunkenstupor昏迷,heplacesthebombunderX’scar;heissodrunkthatheforgetswhyheisdoingthis,andatthemomentthebombisplaced(andthemomentalittlewhilelaterwhenitgoesoff),Dhasnointenttoharmanyone.D’sdrunkennesswillnotgethimoffthehook,becausehehadtherequisiteintenttokillatthemomenthefirstpreparedthebomb.46INTOXICATION醉酒狀態(tài)Doesn’tnegaterecklessnessThemostimportantsinglefacttorememberaboutintoxicationisthatinmostcourts,intoxicationwillnotnegatetheelementofrecklessness.Inotherwords,ifaparticularelementofacrimecanbesatisfiedbyamentalstateofrecklessness,D’sintoxicationwillbeirrelevant.47INTOXICATION醉酒狀態(tài)RapeForinstance,inmany“daterape”cases,DarguesthatVconsented,oratleastthatDbelievedthatVwasconsenting.Butinmoststates(andundertheMPC),D’srecklessmistakeaboutwhetherVconsentedwillsatisfythemensrearequirementsforthataspectofthecrime.Consequently,ifD’sdrunkennesspreventshimfromrealizingthatVisnotconsenting,D’sdefenseof“Ithoughtshewasconsenting”willfail,ifasober清醒的defendantwouldhaverealizedV’slackofconsent.48INTOXICATION醉酒狀態(tài)VoluntarymanslaughterSimilarly,Dwillgenerallynotbeallowedtointroduceevidenceofhisintoxicationinanattempttogetamurderchargereducedtovoluntarymanslaughter.ThisreductionisavailableonlywhereD,actingintheheatofpassion激情,actsunderprovocation刺激thatwouldhavebeenenoughtocauseanordinarypersontolosecontrol.Buttheassumptionisthattheordinarymanissober,soD’sdrunkennessdoesnothelphim.49INTOXICATION醉酒狀態(tài)Example:D,aftergettingdrunkinabar,believesthatVisattackinghimwithadeadlyweapon.AnordinarysobermanwouldhaverealizedthatVwasmerelyholdinghiscarkeys.DshootsVinanhonestattempttosavehisownlife,andnowseeksareductionfrommurdertovoluntarymanslaughter.Becausethedefenseofself-defenseisnotavailablewhenD’sbeliefintheneedforthatdefenseisreckless,D’sdrunkennesswillnothelphim—theactofvoluntarilygettingdrunkitselfconstitutesrecklessness.50INTOXICATION醉酒狀態(tài)InvoluntaryintoxicationIntherarecasewhereDcanshowthathisintoxicationwas“involuntary,”Dismuchmorelikelytohaveavaliddefense有效辯護.Mistakeastonatureofsubstance:Forinstance,ifDintentionallyingests攝取asubstance,butmistakenlybelievesthatitisnotintoxicating,hemayhavetworelateddefenses:(1)asortof“temporaryinsanity”defense,duetohistemporarylackofmentalcapacity;and(2)adefensethattheintoxicationnegatedanelementoftheoffense,eveniftheelementwasoneforwhichrecklessnesswillsuffice（滿足）.51INTOXICATION醉酒狀態(tài)Example:Assumethefactsoftheaboveexample,exceptthatD’sintoxicationisinvoluntarybecausehisfriendgavehimLSD-lacedpunch迷幻藥加酒.Now,Dwillprobablywinwithhisself-defenseclaims,sincehedidnotactrecklesslyingettingdrunk,andareasonablepersoninhis“unintentionallyimpaired削弱”situationmighthavemadethesamemistake.52INTOXICATION醉酒狀態(tài)Alcoholism酒精中毒andnarcotics麻醉藥addictionDefendantswhoarechronic慢性alcoholicsornarcoticsaddictssometimestrytousetheirconditionasadefense.53INTOXICATION醉酒狀態(tài)RejectedButcourtsalmostalwaysrejectanydefensebaseduponthesediseases.Forinstance,Dmightarguethatbecausehewasanalcoholic,hisintoxicationwas“involuntary,”andheshouldthereforebesubjecttothemoreliberalstandardsfor“involuntary”asopposedto“voluntary”self-intoxicationdescribedabove.Butalmostallcourtswouldrejectthe“involuntary”defenseforalcoholicsandaddicts.54DURESS強迫GeneralnatureDissaidtohavecommittedacrimeunder“duress”ifheperformedthecrimebecauseofathreatof,oruseof,forcebyathirdpersonsufficientlystrongthatD’swillwasoverborne壓迫.ThetermappliestoforceplaceduponD’smind,nothisbody.Example:XforcesDtorobV,bythreateningDwithimmediatedeathifhedoesnot.Dwillbeabletoraisethedefenseofduress.55DURESS強迫Elements:DmustestablishthefollowingelementsforduressThreatAthreatbyathirdpersonFearWhichproducesareasonablefearinDImminentdangerThathewillsufferimmediateorimminent逼近的BodilyharmDeathorseriousbodilyinjury.56DURESS強迫ModelPenalCodetestUndertheMPC,thedefenseisavailablewherethethreattoDwassufficientlygreatthat“apersonofreasonablefirmness堅定

in[D’s]situationwouldhavebeenunabletoresist.”57DURESS強迫NotavailableforhomicideTraditionally,thedefenseofduressisnotavailableifDischargedwithhomicide,i.e.,theintentionalkillingofanother.Example:DisamemberofagangrunbyX.XandtheothergangmemberstellDthatifDdoesnotkillV,aninnocentwitnesstooneofthegroup’scrimes,theywillkillDimmediately.Dreasonablyandhonestlybelievesthisthreat.DkillsV.FewifanycourtswillallowDtoassert聲稱thedefenseofduressonthesefacts,becauseheischargedwiththeintentionalkillingofanother.(TheresultprobablywouldnotchangeevenifDhadoriginallybeencoerced強制intojoiningthegang.)58DURESS強迫ReductionofcrimeAfewstatesallowduresstoreducetheseverityofanintentionalhomicide(e.g.,fromfirst-degreepremeditated預謀murdertosecond-degreespur-of-the-moment一時沖動murder).Felony-murderAlso,duressisacceptedasadefensetoachargeoffelony-murder.Example:DiscoercedintodrivingXtoarobberysite.Duringtherobbery,XintentionallykillsV,awitness,tostopVfromcallingthepolice.AlthoughinmoststatesDwouldordinarilybeliableforfelony-murder,moststateswouldallowhimtoraisethedefenseofduresshere.59DURESS強迫Imminence迫近的危險ofthreatenedharmDmustbethreatenedwithimminent逼近的

orimmediateharm,inmostcourts.Thusthethreatoffutureharmisnotsufficient.Butmoderncourtsaremorewillingtorelaxthisrequirement.Example:DwitnessesXkillV.XphonesDtosaythatifDtestifiesagainstXatX’smurdertrial,XwillkillDafterthetrial.Dliesonthestandtoavoidimplicating牽連X.Disthenchargedwithperjury偽證.Traditionally,mostcourtswouldnotallowDtoraisethedefenseofduress,sincethethreatenedharmwasnotimminent.Butamoderncourt,andtheModelPenalCode,mightnotimpose使用thisrequirementofimmediacy.60DURESS強迫ThreatdirectedatpersonotherthandefendantTraditionally,mostcourtshaverequiredthatthethreatenedharmbedirectedatthedefendant.Modernview:Butmoderncourts,andtheMPC,aremoreliberal.ManycourtsnowrecognizethedefensewherethethreatismadeagainstamemberofD’sfamily.TheMPCimposesnorequirementatallaboutwhomustbethreatened(butrememberthatundertheMPCthetestiswhetherapersonof“reasonablefirmness堅定”wouldbecoerced,andthismaybehardtoproveifDiscoercedbythethreatofharmtoacompletestranger).61DURESS強迫DefendantsubjectsselftodangerNearlyallcourtsdenythedefensetoaDwhohasvoluntarilyplacedhimselfinasituationwherethereisasubstantialprobabilitythathewillbesubjectedtoduress.Example:Dvoluntarilyjoinsanorganizedcrimegroupknowntohavethepolicyofomerta（拒絕作證，黑手黨的一個行為準則）,ordeathtoanyonewhoinformsonthegang.Discalledtothewitnessstand,andliestoprotectothergangmembers.Dwillnotbeabletoraisethedefenseofduress,sincehevoluntarilyoratleastrecklesslyplacedhimselfinapositionwherehewaslikelytobesubjectedtoduress.62DURESS強迫Guiltofcoercer:Eventhoughthepersonsubjectedtoduressmayhaveavaliddefenseonthatground,thiswillnotabsolve宣布免除thepersonwhodidthecoercing.Example:AforcesBtorobV,bythreateningtokillBifhedoesnot.EventhoughBprobablyhasaduressdefensetoarobberycharge,Awillbeguiltyofrobbery,onanaccomplice共犯theory.63NECESSITY緊急避險Generally:Thedefenseof“necessity”mayberaisedwhenDhasbeencompelledtocommitacriminalact,notbycoercionfromanotherhumanbeing,butbynon-humanevents.TheessenceofthedefenseisthatDhaschosenthelesseroftwoevils.64NECESSITY緊急避險Example:Dneedstogethisseriouslyillwifetothehospital.Hethereforeviolatesthespeedlimit.Assumingthatthereisnoavailablealternative二選一,suchasanambulance救護車,Dmayclaimthedefenseofnecessity,sincethetrafficviolationswerealesserevilthanlettinghiswifegetsickerordie.65NECESSITY緊急避險RequirementsfordefenseGreaterharmTheharmsoughttobeavoidedisgreaterthantheharmcommittedNoalternativeThereisnothirdalternativethatwouldalsoavoidtheharm,yetwouldbenon-criminaloralessseriouscrimeImminence迫近的Theharmisimminent,notmerelyfutureSituationnotcausedbyDThesituationwasnotbroughtaboutbyD’scarelesslyorrecklesslyputtinghimselfinapositionwheretheemergencywouldarise66NECESSITY緊急避險Example:Doperatesafreeneedle-exchangeprogramfordrugaddictsinanefforttostopthespreadofAIDSinhisneighborhood.Heischargedwithviolatingastatelawthatprohibitsthedistributionofhypodermic皮下注射needleswithoutaprescription處方.Held,Dmaynotusethenecessitydefense,sincetheharmhesoughttopreventwas“debatable可爭議的orspeculative推測的”ratherthanimminent.(ThecourtalsoheldthatthedefenseshouldfailbecauseD