Provocation Associated With Road Rage
Provocation associated with road rage is a plea that arouses serious debate over a variety of factors. First, conduct will be assessed and it will have to be determined whether the accused’s actions meet the relevant requirements of conduct. Additionally, it must be decided whether provocation associated with road rage is a valid defense that will exclude liability, merely a mitigating factor in sentencing, or not a valid defense. The consequences that arise over allowing or disallowing such a plea and the precedent that such a decision will set is the final consideration to be taken into account.
The above statement, made by Hoctor, has two parts: entertaining a plea of non-pathological incapacity due to provocation associated with road rage …show more content…
Road rage is “violent anger caused by the stress and frustration involved in driving a motor vehicle in difficult conditions.” This allows one to conclude that road rage does arouse anger and other emotions and can cause provocation. Seeing as though other forms of non-pathological incapacity and provocation are allowed and accepted as valid defenses if the conduct was not voluntary, it follows that if the provocation and emotional stress associated with road rage was so severe that the actions of an accused were involuntary, there is no reason why a court, in principle, would not grant a plea of non-pathological incapacity due to provocation associated with road rage. In the case S v Eadie, Navas JA, in his judgement, mirrored this sentiment when he said “provocation…a defence when it led to involuntary conduct or where the accused lacked capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of …show more content…
The only account of the accused’s mental state while committing an offences is the accused’s own version of the events, which would mean that the approach is subjective. Courts are hesitant to allow an entirely subjective approach to determine whether or not the accused is guilty as this “could allow a hot headed person to escape conduct committed in that state.” This was clarified by Navas JA in S v Eadie , when he declared that courts “are entitled to draw legitimate inferences from objective
The above statement, made by Hoctor, has two parts: entertaining a plea of non-pathological incapacity due to provocation associated with road rage …show more content…
Road rage is “violent anger caused by the stress and frustration involved in driving a motor vehicle in difficult conditions.” This allows one to conclude that road rage does arouse anger and other emotions and can cause provocation. Seeing as though other forms of non-pathological incapacity and provocation are allowed and accepted as valid defenses if the conduct was not voluntary, it follows that if the provocation and emotional stress associated with road rage was so severe that the actions of an accused were involuntary, there is no reason why a court, in principle, would not grant a plea of non-pathological incapacity due to provocation associated with road rage. In the case S v Eadie, Navas JA, in his judgement, mirrored this sentiment when he said “provocation…a defence when it led to involuntary conduct or where the accused lacked capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of …show more content…
The only account of the accused’s mental state while committing an offences is the accused’s own version of the events, which would mean that the approach is subjective. Courts are hesitant to allow an entirely subjective approach to determine whether or not the accused is guilty as this “could allow a hot headed person to escape conduct committed in that state.” This was clarified by Navas JA in S v Eadie , when he declared that courts “are entitled to draw legitimate inferences from objective