Duress provides an excuse to most crimes but since Howe is excluded to murder. This means someone who kills due to a fear of death or serious injury is denied the defence and instead faces a conviction, and life imprisonment, for murder. This article focuses on the origins of duress to establish that duress was introduced to excuse treason and as such was used to excuse unlawful killing. In Howe, rather than following Dudley and Stephens, there were other binding and persuasive precedents the Lords could have followed to reach the decision that duress should be available to murder. Furthermore, some of the most influential opinions in denying the defence to murder, Hale and East, were voiced without reference to case authority. In conclusion, there is no historical doctrine for denying duress to murder and doing so today is historically unfounded.

中文翻译：

---

胁迫的历史发展和否认胁迫作为谋杀辩护的毫无根据的结果

胁迫为大多数罪行提供了借口，但由于豪被排除在谋杀之外。这意味着因害怕死亡或重伤而杀人的人被拒绝辩护，而是面临谋杀罪的定罪和终身监禁。本文侧重于胁迫的起源，以确定引入胁迫是为了为叛国罪开脱，因此被用来为非法杀戮开脱。在豪案中，上议院可以遵循其他有约束力和有说服力的先例，而不是效仿达德利和斯蒂芬斯，从而做出胁迫谋杀的决定。此外，在否认谋杀辩护方面，一些最有影响力的意见，黑尔和伊斯特，在没有参考案件权威的情况下发表。总之，没有否认胁迫谋杀的历史学说，今天这样做在历史上是没有根据的。