Passion Provocation Defense?

(if this should be in PP go ahead)

What's your stance on this controversial defense?

Quote:

The idea of a crime of passion in which death results in the "heat of the moment" is now considered a part the defense of "provocation". This recognizes that all individuals may suddenly and unexpectedly lose control when words are spoken or events occur but, again, states differ on the extent to which this should be allowed to excuse liability or merely mitigate to a lesser offense such as manslaughter.

Say you found your loved one in bed with another, instead of being charged with a degree of murder (intent to kill/harm) after shooting him/her, you can be charged with manslaughter (unintentional harm).

Personally I think this defense creates a slippery slope and excuses us from control over our actions. To me most murders are crimes of passion, are we to say because we got "angry" and didn't plan the incident, we shouldn't be charged with intent to kill?

Don't they already have allowance for this in the varying degrees of murder there are(1st degree murder, 2nd degree)?
It seems to me that what we have so far is sufficient enough to do the job.

If we do this, it seems we are once again trying to shove off accountability to "extenuating circumstances," and removing the perpetrator from responsibility to control their own actions.
A person who cannot control their anger and subsequently killing someone should be considered just as dangerous as any other murderer.

The purpose of the legal system is not to force people to think (or not think) in certain ways, but to keep them from acting in certain ways.

My opinion:

So this is essentially they're automaticly cutting all 2nd degree murder down to manslaughter? I mean isn't that already pretty much reserved for getting pissed and then killing someone with no previous plan to? It seems to step on temporary insanity's toes a bit too. As someone who suffers from the occasional murderous rage I can say that'd I'd still consider it my own damn fault were I to up and kill someone because I lost my shit. You can't just remove acountability like that.

In murder, it is all about intent. As long as the intent was in the heat of passion, ie. husband coming home to find wife with another man scenario, I believe that it applies. Trust me, I have heatedly been in fights fighting hard for what I've wanted and believed. It's more common than many of us can every imagine. Intent, intent intent. My law teacher loved saying that, God bless his soul. We lost him soon after 9/11

I think anyone who is caught being prone to these crimes of passion should be locked up in some way. obviously there are varying degrees as to how much unmitigated rage is involved in different crimes; some people completely black out and only remember the aftermath, where as others just take it too far and then when they realize what they've done they blame it on passion.

as already pointed out, people who can fly into such fits of rage with no control over them are probably more dangerous to the public than the murderer who premeditates their killings due to the fact that they're far more unpredictable and you can't tell if they're stable enough to be set free.

perhaps jail isn't the right place for all of them, but anyone who can end up in such a rageful state that they erase their actions from all recollection atleast need to serve time in a mental institution where their problems can be sorted out. others who just have problems controlling their anger and accidently go too far I'd say should be jail bound. I wouldn't say murder 1 for them, but manslaughter just seems like a slap on the wrist considering someone was killed in the process.

Provocation sounds like the most lame excuse I've heard. They insulted my mother, so I killed them. C'mon, they had it coming.

How can provocation have any bearing at all on such matters? You should have controlled your response to the provocation, it's as simple as that.

It's ridiculous and will probably lead to people who are good at lying getting away with manslaughter even if they were thinking somewhat coherently. Which is actually why I don't like the distinction between first and second degree murder. Yes, it's good in theory, but it goes back to what I saiad about manslaughter for crimes of passion.

Quote:

as already pointed out, people who can fly into such fits of rage with no control over them are probably more dangerous to the public than the murderer who premeditates their killings due to the fact that they're far more unpredictable and you can't tell if they're stable enough to be set free.

Indeed. At least the person who premeditates their killing has someone specific in mind.

And yet it seems likely that everyone has a breaking point. We could all very well be capable of being overwhelmed by our passions. The concern regarding a slippery slope is a valid one, but the other extreme is paranoid. Will everyone have to undergo psychological testing in order to determine the triggers which might cause them to lose all self-control, and then be confined according to some rating system?

One doesn't lose control, one chooses to abandon it.

Originally Posted by PUG1911

One doesn't lose control, one chooses to abandon it.

I don't entirely agree with that. Control can be kept the vast majority of the time but I think most people have something that can push them past the point of thinking or control. Course it's takes something pretty extreme and i'd consider it a persons responsibility to remove themself from such a situation if at all possible.

The way I see it is that there are some things that if they occur, a person will choose to abandon control. It's understandable, and we're all subject to it, but it doesn't or at least shouldn't be a source for legal defense. A person decides that X was enough to make the ensuing action 'worth it'. Since they feel that the consequences for their actions would be worth the satisfaction or 'justice' they get from going off on somebody.

I agree that it's not a valid defense just not that some people feel something is worth it. Probably just a difference in personal experience with it though. We seem to have a different take on peoples nature and it's doubtfull that it's something that can be argued into anything resembling an agreement on the subject.

IKeeping with the example you mentioned, Devo, I totally agree. It really does make a slippery slope. I could understand manslaughter if you found someone in your house, or in the street "forcing" themselves on someone you care about, or even a stanger for that matter. But in the scenario you've laid out, it seems it warrants a harsher verdict.

It really comes down to the old killing as opposed to murder argument. Another example being, would it be fair to pass down the same judgement on a man that killed someone who broke into his home in order to protect his family, as you would a gang banger that killed someone trying to sell drugs on his "territory."

As what many of you have said, I don't think they should change the sentencing at all. Someone who commits crimes in "the heat of the moment" should be charged and locked up because all the more they are unpredictable in their actions and who knows what will happen when their next "heat of the moment" comes?

I understand there are emotional pitfalls along the way, but I think there's always other ways to resolve the issue and killing people is just pure nonsensical. It doesn't solve anything and you get yourself in hell lot of trouble.

Though still, I think they should really consider things more case by case basis. I do believe there are people who are sincere to change for the better and it was just in that moment of folly that they had committed the crime. It's like everyone has their moments of folly, maybe their actions that came after were just worse than others.

But no matter what the case, I think all of us morally agree that killing someone is wrong and he or she should be given a sentence no matter what the case.

Not even in self-defense?

What if, say, your girlfriend was cheating on you, and you caught them red-handed. You proceed to fight with the fellow, just because you're pissed off. Of course, he fights back, but with a little more fervor. Next thing you know, he pulls a knife of you. You know you're not getting away from this, and he's coming at you. WTF do you do? So you throw a rock at his head...and he's out...for good.

Are you at fault?

This is why the laws have pesky sidestreets to them, because odd fucked up situation actually can happen, and they're there (for the most part) to keep innocent people from taking the full blow of the law, despite the fact that the loopholes are generally abused rather than utilized.

Originally Posted by Zephyrin

Not even in self-defense?

What if, say, your girlfriend was cheating on you, and you caught them red-handed. You proceed to fight with the fellow, just because you're pissed off. Of course, he fights back, but with a little more fervor. Next thing you know, he pulls a knife of you. You know you're not getting away from this, and he's coming at you. WTF do you do? So you throw a rock at his head...and he's out...for good.

Are you at fault?

This is why the laws have pesky sidestreets to them, because odd fucked up situation actually can happen, and they're there (for the most part) to keep innocent people from taking the full blow of the law, despite the fact that the loopholes are generally abused rather than utilized.

I have yet to see this defense used in a case of "self-defense" actually. I've just seen it utilized to rationalize a murder (in which the person killed posed no physical threat).

That's entirely different from "Passion Provocation."

In that situation, Bob killed Joe because Joe had a knife and Bob had a reason to feel threatened. That can be justified. In the situation described in the topic, Bob killed Joe because Joe was boinking his wife. That can not be justified.

Originally Posted by Zephyrin

Not even in self-defense?

What if, say, your girlfriend was cheating on you, and you caught them red-handed. You proceed to fight with the fellow, just because you're pissed off. Of course, he fights back, but with a little more fervor. Next thing you know, he pulls a knife of you. You know you're not getting away from this, and he's coming at you. WTF do you do? So you throw a rock at his head...and he's out...for good.

Are you at fault?

This is why the laws have pesky sidestreets to them, because odd fucked up situation actually can happen, and they're there (for the most part) to keep innocent people from taking the full blow of the law, despite the fact that the loopholes are generally abused rather than utilized.

The scenario you gave there is the classic example of the voluntary manslaughter charge. It's not considered a degree of murder because it was in the "heat of the moment" and the person was emotionally charged.
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m012.htm

And right, if you kill the person banging your girlfriend, you're still getting time, just slightly less than a murder charge. Of course this is assuming that the man killed the other man in the heat of passion for this argument's sake.