What defense is applicable when Y robs a bank due to threats from X in a duress situation?

The applicable defense when Y robs a bank under threats from X in a duress situation is duress by threats. This legal principle acknowledges that an individual may be compelled to commit a criminal act, such as robbery, if they are facing imminent threats of death or serious harm. The key elements of this defense are that the defendant must demonstrate that they acted under the pressure of a legitimate and immediate threat and that they had no viable choice but to engage in the criminal conduct to avoid the threatened harm.

In this scenario, Y's actions can be seen as a direct response to X's threats. The law generally recognizes that a person cannot be held fully culpable when they commit a crime as a direct result of another individual coercing them through fear of significant harm. This defense relies on the understanding that the person's will is overborne by the immediate circumstances they are facing.

Other choices, such as duress of circumstances, would pertain to situations where an individual acts to avoid a clear and imminent danger in an external situation rather than due to direct threats by another person. Necessity involves acts conducted to prevent greater harm but does not specifically apply to threats by another party. Insanity refers to a mental state where a person cannot understand the nature of their