View Full Version : legal question???

06-23-2010, 08:50 PM
hi i was wondering... ok say if a person holds someone captive but they were forced to hold that person captive by others, could that person legally be guilty for holding that person captive considering they were forced to do so???

06-23-2010, 09:17 PM
I'm not a lawyer.

Instinct and common sense says that if Alvin holds a gun to my child's head and says he'll shoot unless I hold Jerry captive, no jury in the world is likely to find me guilty. That would be true even if I only thought Alvin had a gun to my child's head, while my child was safe and sound.

It'll be interesting to see what the lawyers here have to say.

Maryn, who'll keep you company until they arrive

06-23-2010, 09:28 PM
I don't believe that someone can be held legally responsible for acts done while that person was under duress. Duress certainly voids signatures, but I don't know how it is handled for other actions.

06-23-2010, 10:07 PM
Instinct and common sense says that if Alvin holds a gun to my child's head and says he'll shoot unless I hold Jerry captive, no jury in the world is likely to find me guilty.Of course, not all places in the world use juries. ;)

Anyway, as long as whatever is used to threaten someone is worse than what they're forced to do, they should have adequate chances of not being held responsible for it. The closer the two the more difficult it would be of course. Since kidnapping (or even "just" unlawful imprisonment) is a pretty serious crime, that'd better be a hell of threat. Harming a person because someone kidnapped your dog is not likely to fly in court. Though probably more likely if it's somewhere with common law trials.

06-24-2010, 05:20 PM
ok that's what i figured but i wasnt completely sure. The sistuation is a guy (Tom) was brought up in a town where they would capture, rape, torture and kill people all the time. It was a natrual occurance here. But unlike everyone else he had a concience, but when he is forced to marry a captive woman or he himself will be killed by his family and neighbors he does so to save his life. Long story shot they both know there going to die if they dont have a kid... Now for the next 17 years they stay in the town, him technically keeping her hostage because if they get caught leaving the kid will be killed...
So Tom is not legally guilty for keeping her hostage right?

06-24-2010, 07:00 PM
If she also knows they're going to die, presumably she's making the (not exactly free) choice to stay? It's not like he's keeping her tied up in the basement or something. I don't get how this is him holding her captive any more than it is vice-versa.

06-24-2010, 08:04 PM
There's also the issue of Tom (and the woman) must attempt to escape from the situation. If they are free to come and go as they please, it is incumbent upon them to get away and go for help.

If the entire community, including all the surrounding communities live under the same coercive rules, then It's no longer a crime, it's the norm of the community.

06-24-2010, 08:48 PM
sorry probably should have added that they cant leave the town. No one's ever escaped from the town.

Electric fences and such kind of security. Tom could in th begining of there marrage leave for a special reason that needed to be approved by the town councel but if he never returned she (Marge) would be either killed or sent off to be re-married to another man who would certinally torment her. After there child was born they couldnt attempt to leave or there child would be killed.

And this town is somewhat unknow about to the world. Hidden away in the middle of nowhere, where they created there own system of "government". Other towns close by know of there exhistance but not what goes on there. So they dont go by standard american law.

06-24-2010, 08:50 PM
the reason this who question came to be is the town is raided by police officers and such so would Tom be sent to prison or convicted for "crimes"

06-24-2010, 11:20 PM
Does the story take place in the US? He could be charged with crimes, sure, but it would be up to a jury to convict him, so you can really have it go either way.

06-25-2010, 10:39 AM
Surely if the authorities finally wised up and raided the town, they would be too busy arresting the murderers, rapists and torturers to be too worried about arranged marriages? At least in the first wave of arrests. If Tom is the only person in town with a conscience, and has done all this horrible stuff against his will, wouldn't he turn state's evidence and get immunity in return for his testimony?
And, there are some people who would say, "Kill the brat, I didn't want it anyway."