4 ms·
Not according to the California penal code. Duress suffices, and duress is not limited to physical force. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261 h
by nknighthb 12y ago
Not according to the California penal code. Duress suffices, and duress is not limited to physical force.
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261
"(b) As used in this section, "duress" means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress."
- yummyfajitas 12y agoRead that whole section. 261.7 refers to public officials abusing their authority, and duress is defined in that context.
- nknighthb 12y agoIncorrect. The paragraph I quoted is 261(b). The paragraph you are talking about is 261(a)(7), part of 261(a). Note that 261(a)(7) never even uses the word "duress". Furthermore, 261(b) says "this section". The "section" is 261, not 261(a)(7). Note also that 261(a)(7) calls itself "this paragraph", not "this section". 261.7 is a completely different section concerning the evidentiary value of birth control methods: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261.7 http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/PEN/3/1/9/1/s261.7
- yummyfajitas 12y agoYou are right, I'm misunderstanding the scoping rules for law. I was interpreting it as (261 ... (7 ... (b ...))) rather than (261 (a ... (7 ...) ) (b ...) ). I guess the question hinges on what is intended by the word "retribution".