Abstract
For over 300 years, criminal courts have regarded sexual infidelity as sufficiently grave provocation as to provide a warrant, indeed a ‘moral warrant’, for reducing murder to manslaughter. While the warrant has spilled over into diminished responsibility defences, wounding, grievous bodily harm and attempted murder cases, it is provocation cases that have provided the precedents enshrining a defendant's impassioned homicidal sexual infidelity tale as excusatory. Periodically, judges and law reformers attempt to reign in provocation defences, most recently in England and Wales where provocation has been replaced by a loss of control defence that, most controversially, specifically excludes sexual infidelity as a trigger for loss of control. This paper reflects on this reform and its reception, glossing Shakespeare's scathing critique of warrants for murder inTitus Andronicus.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference58 articles.
1. ‘Provoked reason in men and women: heat-of-passion manslaughter and imperfect self-defence’;Taylor;UCLA Law Review,1986
2. ‘Getting tough with defences’;Quick;Crim LR,2006
3. Leaving Provocation to the Jury: A Homicidal Muddle?
Cited by
10 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献