What key takeaway from R v Aravena emphasizes the limitations of the duress defense?

The case of R v Aravena highlights the specific limitations of the duress defense in the context of criminal liability. The key takeaway is that while the defense may be available to parties in a criminal act, it is generally not available to those who are principal offenders in serious crimes such as murder. In the context of this case, the court recognized that individuals who directly perpetrate murder cannot invoke duress as a valid defense. This underscores a critical principle in criminal law: the gravity of the crime limits the applicability of protections like the duress defense.

The reasoning behind this limitation is rooted in the legal system's stance on personal culpability—individuals who commit serious offenses, like murder, are expected to bear full responsibility for their actions, regardless of external pressures they may have faced at the time. This principle effectively delineates the boundaries of how duress is applied in cases involving serious crimes and clarifies the distinction in liability between principals and accomplices.