@Insanityprism
Okay, looking over the situation again.
Legally, Hannah:
• Commits a crime with explicit
quid pro quo, was at the scene of the crime and initiated the physical act.
• She knew what she was doing was criminal. She had the
mens rea.
• She was a best, a principle in the second degree, and at worst a principle in the first degree.
• The only thing she was being threatened with was inaction. Legally, that cannot count as duress because not doing anything to help is not a crime.
• The other perpetrators did not have undue influence over her, as they were not in her command hierarchy.
• In the USA, people between the ages 15 and 17 can be tried as an adult if the crime is serious enough.
• In the middle ages, children over the age of 7 would be treated as adults if they committed a crime. A time when people could be hanged for poaching, let alone kidnapping the feudal lord's child.
Ethically, Hannah:
• Was not in a zero sum situation.
• Did not seek help, and expected to get away with the crime right up until she was grabbed as well.
• Did not discuss with her family.
• Was not pressed for time to make a decision.
• Endangered her entire family with her actions.
Teens are capable of intelligent behavior and heroics. Hannah's actions are stupid and evil no matter how I look at it. If I were judge, jury, and executioner, I'd sentence her to lengthy rehabilitation and not allow her to work with children again. But statistically speaking, once she pulled the metaphorical trigger, her odds of survival were already only 50/50.