Respond to the post below in your own perspective

The defenses of necessity and duress are typically used in specific circumstances. The defense of necessity is invoked when a person commits a crime to prevent greater harm. For example, if someone breaks into a house to escape from a severe storm, this defense might apply. The defense of duress is used when a person commits a crime under the threat of immediate harm or death. For instance, if someone robs a bank because someone is threatening to harm their family, they might use the defense of duress. The defense of entrapment can be raised when a person commits a crime because they were induced or persuaded by law enforcement officers. This defense is based on the argument that the person would not have committed the crime had it not been for undue persuasion or trickery by the police. To successfully raise this defense, the defendant must prove two things: first, that the idea of committing the crime came from the law enforcement officers, not the defendant; and second, that the defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime before the officers induced them. The success of these defenses largely depends on the specific circumstances of each case. However, these defenses are not often successful as they require the defendant to admit to the crime and then convince the court that they had a valid reason for committing it. The burden of proof is on the defendant, which can be difficult to meet.