In what scenario does compulsion exist as a defense?

Compulsion exists as a defense in scenarios where an individual’s ability to act with reasonable firmness is compromised. This means that the person faces a situation where they are forced to act against their will due to external pressures or threats. In this context, the law recognizes that individuals who are compelled to act out of fear for their safety or well-being may not have the free will required to be held fully responsible for their actions.

This is distinct from other options that do not align with the legal definition of compulsion. For example, intoxication often alters a person’s state of mind but does not inherently constitute compulsion, as the individual has made the decision to consume substances. Similarly, a law enforcement setup might involve entrapment rather than compulsion, since it focuses more on the actions of law enforcement rather than the coerced choices of the individual. Lastly, peer pressure alone, without a credible threat of harm, does not meet the threshold of compulsion as defined in the legal sense, as it typically involves social influence rather than a coercive force. Thus, the scenario focusing on a lack of reasonable firmness highlights the critical aspects of compulsion as a defense in legal contexts.