Jump to content

Talk:Provocation (law)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Provocation (legal))

question

[edit]

in common law places like victoria australia, provocation is only a defence to murder. is this different in other places? i would like some feedback before i edit the page. Xtra 12:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Homosexual advance?

[edit]

"Although not a traditional provocation circumstance, some states have laws that a non-violent homosexual advance constitutes sufficient provocation to reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter."

This sounds like it should raise quite a stink...can anyone cite this? Twin Bird 20:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of citations. It might surprise you that this is a fairly well-recognised scenario in which provocation can occur, at least in Australian law - I'm not sure about elsewhere in the world. A few writers refer to it as a separate 'homosexual advance defence,' but the substantive law is the same as provocation. Where the homosexual advance becomes violent, self-defence can also come into play. Kirby J (dissenting) goes into a spirited attack on the defence in the case of Green (1997), arguing that this defence creates the impression that homophobic violence will be tolerated. There's a fair bit of literature on the subject floating around if you're interested. Phil500 11:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was certainly relevant in the New Zealand context, although it's been overshadowed by current government moves to abolish the defence after a similar public outcry over its abuse by a male defendant against a female homicide victim 203.114.146.129 (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu[reply]

another example

[edit]

i think another example of cases where provocation is sometimes used might be adultery - coming upon your spouse with her lover - and i think you can kill them both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.122.41 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're on the right track - in fact, this is one of the earliest known applications of the defence we now know as provocation. Remember that provocation originated as a man's defence, so killing an adulterous wife was deemed to be quite within the bounds of a reasonable man's actions in such a provocative situation. Subsequent common law has diluted this presumption, and it is less likely that a discovery of adulterous conduct, without other provocative actions, would be sufficient. Mere words (ie. being told of adultery by a spouse, rather than actually witnessing it) is not sufficient to prove provocation. I have not altered the article, as this example of provocation is already listed, but hopefully this will give you some clarification. Phil500 23:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, though. In Australia's state of Victoria, the provocation defence was abolished after a public outcry followed the death of Julie Rammage in 2003. Her husband and killer successfully used the defence and got a mitigated verdict of manslaughter. Victoria abolished the provocation defence in 2005, as has Tasmania (2003). 203.114.146.129 (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu[reply]

request1

[edit]

can someone add something about A Time to Kill, i think its kinda appropriate....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.216.137 (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Citations

[edit]

"Data from Australia shows that the partial defense of provocation that converts murder into manslaughter has been used successfully primarily in two circumstances: sexual infidelity where a male kills his female partner or her lover; and non-violent homosexual advances."

The source cited doesn't make this claim. If a source cannot be found, the text should be deleted. 72.74.247.17 (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dueling

[edit]

Does dueling have anything to do with the provocation in law? Many people in the past whose honour was abridged asked for a duel, and if granted, they took turns fighting each other, with guns, swords or something else. That might lead to death, especially with a gun. Any ideas WIKIPEDIA members? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.156.139 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

This seems legit because it is very legitimately legitimate. Very police. Much provocation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.191.216 (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To comment, there are differences.
Dueling was based around an upper class code of honour. Say upper class twit A offended upper class twit B, such as with an insult or sleeping with his wife. Then B might challenge A to a duel. They would then fight each other with deadly weapons. A duel was normally designed to be a situation where they would be putting their lives in danger but still not expecting to be killed. It was rather like a round of Russian roulette (inevitably though, they sometimes did lead to deaths, including Alexander Hamilton's). The idea was that the offence had damaged B's honour, and when B showed he was willing to risk his life to defend his honour, that honour would be restored. This idea of honour seems very alien to a modern society.
Modern laws about provocation deal with when A offends B and B punches A. B has committed an assault and would be found guilty in court. However, as B was provoked and probably lost his temper in the heat of the moment, he gets a more lenient punishment. Anywikiuser (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is tangential to the main point, but my understanding is that duelling became less dangerous one guns started being used. Because with duelling pistols, you get one shot with a not very accurate weapon, and if everyone is still alive after both duellists have fired, there is a good chance that they will agree to leave it at that. Whereas with swords or daggers, people will be stabbing at each other until someone is too injured to keep fighting, by which time both may be fatally injured. Iapetus (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Too much focus on murder

[edit]

Almost all the information in this article seems to be focused on provocation in cases of murder. While this is likely the most commonly discussed area regarding provocation, the lead makes it clear that provocation is a much broader subject. It applies in many non-fatal situations such as assault, battery, and malicious destruction of property. In most cases it doesn't necessarily absolve a person of culpability, but the punishment handed down would tend to be lower than the same crime if done in a cold and calculated way, or for malicious and self-serving reasons. I will try to find good sources, but I would appreciate any help from other editors reading this.Legitimus (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Provocation (legal). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Provocation (legal). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Banner?

[edit]

I do not see a need for neutrality banner, anybody to the contrary? Mulstev (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is nothing disputing the neutrality of that section on talk; and the tag is from 6 years ago. I removed it. 2A02:2F0F:B1FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:D75E (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 January 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. WP:RMNOMIN (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 05:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Provocation (legal) → Provocation (law) – Standard way of disambiguating, and would follow article title formatting like Guilt (law). aaronneallucas (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Provocation_(law)&oldid=1215304771"