What is considered an affirmative defense to prosecution when a person is compelled by threat?

Duress is recognized as an affirmative defense to prosecution when a person commits an act because they are compelled by threats of harm. In situations of duress, an individual perceives an imminent threat to their safety or the safety of others, which coerces them into committing an otherwise illegal act. The key point here is that the person’s actions are not driven by free will but rather by the pressing need to avoid significant harm, making it a valid justification in the eyes of the law.

In contrast, self-defense refers to an individual’s right to protect themselves against an immediate threat without the element of coercion through threats. Necessity is related to situations where a person must break the law to prevent a greater harm, but it does not solely hinge on being compelled by a third party's threat. Lastly, insanity pertains to the mental state of the defendant, arguing that they were unable to understand the nature of their actions or distinguish right from wrong at the time of the offense, which is distinctly different from being forced into a situation. Therefore, the nature of duress distinctly aligns with the concept of being compelled by a threat, establishing it as the correct answer.