The Pros And Cons Of Provocation
Murder is a common law crime which carries a mandatory life sentence for those found guilty. As in all areas of law, the accused may put forward a defence so as to seek an acquittal. In murder cases, there are statutory defences which may provide a partial defence which allows the charge of murder to be reduced to manslaughter. The unique defences to murder, as provided by the Homicide Act 1957 are diminished responsibility and provocation . If a person is charged with a non fatal offence they may argue provocation in mitigation but not as a defence to the actual crime charged. Diminished responsibility and provocation each consist of separate elements which must be established in order for the defences to succeed. Diminished responsibility
…show more content…
This requirement demands that the accused react immediately after the provoking incident. Any delay between the provocation and the response, therefore, is taken as contradicting the suggestion of loss of self control which forms the essence of the plea. Although battered women who kill have described their actions in terms of having been provoked to the point of losing self control, the law has difficulty recognizing their defence of provocation. Women, who have been subjected to long-term violence by the deceased, often speak in terms of their resilience to retain self control being eroded over time. Thus, instead of reacting under the influence of a red anger, this anger may perhaps better be described in terms of a white anger. While they may not kill immediately after the first violent assault, the effect of continuous abuse eventually culminates causing a loss of self control, not necessarily immediately after a violent encounter but very often some time after a relatively minor triggering incident. However, because of the limitations of the immediacy requirement, which focuses on the last act of provocation, law has struggled to find provocative behaviour which could excuse a killing. On this view, both the nature of the provocation and the degree of force used in response would appear to be inconsistent with law's
This requirement demands that the accused react immediately after the provoking incident. Any delay between the provocation and the response, therefore, is taken as contradicting the suggestion of loss of self control which forms the essence of the plea. Although battered women who kill have described their actions in terms of having been provoked to the point of losing self control, the law has difficulty recognizing their defence of provocation. Women, who have been subjected to long-term violence by the deceased, often speak in terms of their resilience to retain self control being eroded over time. Thus, instead of reacting under the influence of a red anger, this anger may perhaps better be described in terms of a white anger. While they may not kill immediately after the first violent assault, the effect of continuous abuse eventually culminates causing a loss of self control, not necessarily immediately after a violent encounter but very often some time after a relatively minor triggering incident. However, because of the limitations of the immediacy requirement, which focuses on the last act of provocation, law has struggled to find provocative behaviour which could excuse a killing. On this view, both the nature of the provocation and the degree of force used in response would appear to be inconsistent with law's