Coercing someone is sometimes wrong and sometimes a crime. People subject to coercion are sometimes eligible for criminaldefenses, such as duress. How, exactly, does coercion operate in such contexts? Among legal scholars, the predominant understanding of coercion is the “wrongful pressure” model, which states that coercion exists when the coercer wrongfully threatens the target and, as a result of this threat, the target is pressured to act in accordance with the coercer’s threat. Some tokens of coercion do not fit neatly within existing legal categories or the wrongful pressure model of coercion. For example, coercive control is a psychological phenomenon of interpersonal abuse in which one person pervasively regulates the choices of another. Coercive control is sometimes carried out through violence or threats of violence but often through ostensibly non-violent forms of degradation (such as humiliation and isolation). Coercive control is often evinced in abusive intimate relationships, including in human trafficking. People subject to coercive control are undeniably coerced. Yet the wrongful pressure model cannot adequately explain why. Those subject to coercive control are ineligible for coercion-based criminal defenses, such as duress and affirmative defenses for victims of human trafficking, in part because of the inadequacy of the wrongful pressure model. This Article articulates and defends an alternative understanding of coercion that, after philosopher Scott Anderson’s theory of the same name, we call the “enforcement approach” to coercion. According to the enforcement approach, coercion involves the coercer’s using power to determine what the target will or will not do. The enforcement approach is superior to the wrongful pressure approach as an explanation for what makes coercion wrong and why being subject to coercion should provide a defense to criminal liability. Furthermore, the enforcement approach better explains how coercion operates pervasively, such as in coercive control contexts. The enforcement approach also invites a broader rethinking of coercion-based criminal defenses. The enforcement approach grounds a model of criminal defense for those subject to coercive control that would supplement existing defenses.

强迫某人有时是错误的，有时是犯罪。受到胁迫的人有时有资格获得刑事辩护，例如胁迫。强制在这种情况下究竟是如何运作的？在法律学者中，对胁迫的主要理解是“错误施压”模型，该模型指出，胁迫者在胁迫者错误地威胁目标时存在胁迫，并且由于这种威胁，目标被迫按照胁迫者的威胁行事。 . 一些胁迫的象征并不完全符合现有的法律类别或胁迫的错误压力模型。例如，强制控制是一种人际虐待的心理现象，其中一个人普遍地调节另一个人的选择。强制控制有时是通过暴力或暴力威胁进行的，但通常是通过表面上的非暴力形式的退化（例如羞辱和孤立）。强制控制通常表现在虐待性亲密关系中，包括贩卖人口。受强制控制的人无疑是受到胁迫的。然而，错误的压力模型无法充分解释原因。受到强制控制的人没有资格获得基于强制的刑事辩护，例如对人口贩运受害者的胁迫和肯定辩护，部分原因是不正当压力模型的不足。本文阐明并捍卫了对强制的另一种理解，在哲学家斯科特安德森的同名理论之后，我们将强制方法称为“强制方法”。根据执行方式，胁迫是指胁迫者使用权力来决定目标将做什么或不做什么。强制执行方法优于错误施压方法，因为它可以解释什么是胁迫是错误的，以及为什么受到胁迫应该为刑事责任提供辩护。此外，执法方法更好地解释了强制如何普遍运作，例如在强制控制环境中。执法方法还要求对基于胁迫的刑事辩护进行更广泛的重新思考。执法方法为那些受到强制控制的人建立了一种刑事辩护模式，以补充现有的辩护。强制执行方法优于错误施压方法，因为它可以解释什么是胁迫是错误的，以及为什么受到胁迫应该为刑事责任提供辩护。此外，执法方法更好地解释了强制如何普遍运作，例如在强制控制环境中。执法方法还要求对基于胁迫的刑事辩护进行更广泛的重新思考。执法方法为那些受到强制控制的人建立了一种刑事辩护模式，以补充现有的辩护。强制执行方法优于错误施压方法，因为它可以解释什么是胁迫是错误的，以及为什么受到胁迫应该为刑事责任提供辩护。此外，执法方法更好地解释了强制如何普遍运作，例如在强制控制环境中。执法方法还要求对基于胁迫的刑事辩护进行更广泛的重新思考。执法方法为那些受到强制控制的人建立了一种刑事辩护模式，以补充现有的辩护。执法方法还要求对基于胁迫的刑事辩护进行更广泛的重新思考。执法方法为那些受到强制控制的人建立了一种刑事辩护模式，以补充现有的辩护。执法方法还要求对基于胁迫的刑事辩护进行更广泛的重新思考。执法方法为那些受到强制控制的人建立了一种刑事辩护模式，以补充现有的辩护。