The law has struggled for many years with the problem of how to accommodate
those who commit crimes due to threats or circumstances. The modern ambivalence
surrounding the defences of duress and necessity has its origins in the legal
past. To date the defences of duress and necessity have been couched in terms
such as compulsion, involuntariness and human frailty, resulting in the true
nature of the defences being hidden. Psychologists and legal theorists have
begun to re-examine the role of emotions in human action, including their effect
upon behaviour and choice. In light of recent breakthroughs, Eimear Spain
considers how the emotions experienced by those who act due to threats, both
human and natural in origin, should affect the attribution of criminal
responsibility and punishment. The understanding of emotions extrapolated in
this book points towards a new rationale for the existing defences of duress and
necessity.