A hypothetical:

Say a mugger demands all of my money. If I somehow convince him to take some of my money instead of all of it, am I complicit in the mugging?

Have I consented to be mugged?

Have I endorsed mugging?

Is the mugger entitled to accost me again, take half my money, and then justify it by saying, “Hey– this was your idea”?

2 thoughts on “5011.

  1. From a legal perspective, I would say no. Contracts made under duress are not enforceable.

    “A contract can be set aside if it has been entered into under duress…Duress essentially has two elements: (1) illegitimate pressure which (2) constitutes a significant cause of inducing the other party to enter the contract.” http://www.claim-advice.com/duress.html

    But you’re really interested in something more than just legalities right?

    Option 1 is I don’t give him my money and risk some kind of altercation. Option 2 is I give him all my money and am uncertain of the any outcome or altercation thereafter. Option 3 is I attempt to make a deal with the mugger in which I benefit by keeping half of my money and knowing there will be no altercation. The mugger benefits in that you are co-operative and no altercation is likely to occur during the mugging.

    But why stop at mugging? Why not raise the stakes? What if there’s a murderer in your house and you have the oppertunity to bargain down how many of your six family members are murdered?
    Are you complicit?
    Have you consented to the murder?
    Have you endorsed it?


  2. No. This is similar to rape cases in which the victim asks their rapist to use a condom. Precedences set by courts (the earliest case I could find through a lazy google search was 1993) has asserted that partial-compliance with the motivation for ultimate protection (in your case the remainder of your money, in a rape case the threat of pregnancy or STI) does not equal consent nor does it make the victim complicit in the crime.


Comments are closed.