Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
Insanity, diminished responsibility and automatism.
Member rating: No Rating | Words: | Submitted: Fri Mar 31 2006
Page Preview
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
In order to decide if the law makes unreasonable allowances for 'human frailties' in the defence of provocation, it must firstly be determined what the law of provocation is and how it has evolved, thus, analysing the problem of antiquity with the defence and identifying the need for complete abolishment or at the very least, total reform. As can be drawn from the forthcoming evidence, it is submitted that the current law on provocation is a 'legal concession [that] dictates an excusatory focus on an unedifying side to human nature'1. Provocation is only available as a defence to a charge of murder, reducing murder to manslaughter. If the jury (upon direction of the judge) are satisfied that the defendant reacted to the alleged provocative conduct of the deceased, they must substitute the murder charge for one of manslaughter, with the burden of proof resting with the prosecution and this must...
Get instant access
- Instant, unlimited access to our documents in full
- Swap your work for free access, or pay £4.99
- To see the full version of this document and 149,430 others
