criminal-law
You are asked to choose between 2 people who will be killed. What happens if you pick someone?
<p>Say the following situation occurs:</p>
<p>A sadistic murderer kidnaps you and 2 other people. They tell you to pick one of the two other people, and the person you did not pick will be killed. You have 30 seconds, and if you give no answer, both people will be killed.</p>
<p>Are you guilty of any crimes if you pick a person?
What if you pick no one in the 30 seconds?
Does the situation change if after the 30 seconds, all 3 of you will be killed?</p>

<p><a href="https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/duress/" rel="noreferrer">Duress</a> is a defense to crimes in most jurisdictions. This circumstance (you have been kidnapped and are falsely imprisoned by a murderer who has indicated a present intent to kill someone) would constitute duress. You would not have criminal liability in those jurisdictions.</p>
<p>Some, but fewer jurisdictions than those that recognize a duress defense, also recognize a <a href="https://www.lacriminaldefenseattorney.com/legal-dictionary/c/choice-of-evils/" rel="noreferrer">choice of evils defense</a>. This defense might be applicable in this situation as well. But it could apply in a situation when you were not kidnapped but the bad guy called you and posed this question to you.</p>

<p>Possibly you are guilty of &quot;incitement&quot; (or similar name depending on jurisdiction). For example, it is a crime if you tell a person &quot;You should kill Smith&quot;. The exact wording is not important, so if they ask &quot;Who should I kill&quot;, saying &quot;Smith&quot; would be encouraging a crime. You don't actually know the future so you just have a weak reason to believe that both people will die is you don't make a choice in 30 seconds (you have a stronger reason to think that this is an ethics class hoax). There is no legal principle that says &quot;a crime that reduces the number of victims is not a crime&quot;, but you can hope for mercy from the jury. You might advance a &quot;defense of others&quot; defense. The answer ultimately depends on jurisdiction (what constitutes &quot;aiding&quot; a crime; in what circumstance can you commit a crime in aid of others).</p>
<p>In California, <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&amp;sectionNum=31" rel="nofollow noreferrer">PC 31</a> states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be
felony or misdemeanor, and whether they directly commit the act
constituting the offense, or aid and abet in its commission, or, not
being present, have advised and encouraged its commission ...to commit
any crime... are principals in any crime so committed.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=653f.&amp;lawCode=PEN" rel="nofollow noreferrer">653f(b)PC</a>, the solicitation statute, says</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Every person who, with the intent that the crime be committed,
solicits another to commit or join in the commission of murder shall
be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for three, six, or
nine years.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Presumably the defendant would argue that they did not intend that one party be killed, but that seems like a dubious claim. As noted by <a href="https://www.laattorney.com/what-does-intent-mean-in-a-criminal-statute.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this attorney,</a> &quot;Wrongful intent doesn't mean that you have to intend to break the law. Sometimes people act with good intentions. Even good intentions can be criminal intent because they show that you intended to commit the prohibited act&quot;.</p>
