What differentiates the statutory defense of duress from the common law defense?

The statutory defense of duress is governed by specific provisions, which often limit its applicability to particular offenders, typically focusing on principal offenders. In contrast, the common law defense may potentially be invoked by a wider range of individuals, including accomplices or those who may not be the primary actors in committing the crime.

The purpose of the statutory framework is to clarify and restrict eligibility to ensure that only those directly involved in the commission of a crime can claim the duress defense. This aligns with the intent to uphold legal accountability and prevent the misuse of duress as a justification for criminal actions.

In this context, other options do not accurately represent the distinctions between the statutory and common law defenses. For example, the suggestion that the statutory defense applies regardless of the presence of the accused during the threats misrepresents the fundamental premise of duress, which requires a direct threat to the individual involved. Additionally, the claim that the statutory defense applies to all types of crimes without limitation overlooks the specific legal restrictions that typically accompany statutory formulations. Finally, while it may seem that the common law defense is broader, in reality, the statutory provisions are crafted to focus on clarity and limitation rather than breadth.