Wednesday, May 29, 2019

Development Of Defense Of Provocation :: essays research papers

Development of Defense of ProvocationQuestion Critically appreciate the development of prevalent impartiality principlesapplicable to the defence of excitation in criminal law from the decision inMancini v DPP 1942 AC 1 to Mascantonio v R (1995) 183 CLR 58. Assess thedegree to which the green law has proved inflexible in responding changingsocietal needs and expectations. Are there other reasoned means of achievingsubstantive justice?     At the time of the case of Mancini the concept of soreness as adefence to mar was already a considerably established one dating back centuries. Itoriginated from the days when men bore arms and engaged in quarrels of violencethat often resulted in a homicide existence committed. For provocation to be anample defence to mutilate it needed to be something which incited immediate anger,or "passion" and which overcame a persons self control to such an result so asto overpower or swamp his reason. What this someth ing can be has been thesubject of many views through the centuries, and these views have stronglydepended upon the type of person whom the law has regarded as deservingextenuated consideration when provoked to kill. In the words of Viscount Simon"the law has to reconcile respect for the sanctity of human life withrecognition of the effect of provocation on human frailty. " In this regard thedifficult concept of the "reasonable man" or the "ordinary man" has developedand with it the legal doctrine that provocation must be such as would not only make out the person accused to behave as he did but as would cause an ordinary manto so lose control of himself as to act in the same sort of way. It is thereforeinteresting to examine how the doctrine of common law in relation to provocationhas responded to changing societal needs and values. It also provides a usefulcase study in which the development of common law doctrine can be observed. Itis useful to conduct a ca se-by-case analysis of the rule of provocation as adefence to murder in order to more effectively observe the legal evolution thathas taken place.     In the case of Mancini v DPP 1942 AC 1 the appellant had beenconvicted for murder after stabbing a man to death in a club. The appellantscounsel contended that the trial judge should have directed that the jury wasopen to describe provocation to reduce the appellants conviction to manslaughter.Lord Simonds provided direction upon what kind of provocation would reducemurder to manslaughter. He said that the provocation must temporarily ransack

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.