Which defense allows a person to avoid legal responsibility by claiming they were forced to commit the crime?

The defense that allows a person to avoid legal responsibility by claiming they were forced to commit the crime is known as duress. This legal principle acknowledges that an individual may engage in illegal activity not out of their own free will, but rather because they were threatened with imminent harm or significant danger if they refused to comply.

Duress operates on the premise that the pressure exerted on the individual negates their ability to make a voluntary choice, thereby providing a valid justification for their actions in the eyes of the law. For example, if someone commits a robbery because a person has threatened them or their loved ones with physical harm, they may invoke duress as a defense to the charges brought against them.

This defense is distinct from others. Necessity, for example, typically involves a defense based on prevention of greater harm rather than being coerced. Self-defense pertains to the use of reasonable force to protect oneself from an imminent threat and does not involve being forced into committing a crime. Consent involves permission and does not apply in situations of coercion or threats. Thus, duress is the correct defense for claiming that an individual was compelled to commit a crime due to external pressure.