A recent case has come up where a man beat his girlfriend to death with a steering wheel lock in a car, so they’re thinking of scrapping it here, or at least altering it so it does not function in the situation of verbal provocation. (the girlfriend was boasting about cheating on him before he killed her) Something has been said for whether it should function in cases where a weapon is used.

What do others think?

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0009/latest/DLM135545.html?search=ts_act_Sentencing+Act#DLM135545

The judge goes through all relevant considerations, and uses their judicial skills to balance them. If an offender thinks that they only did what they did because they genuinely felt threatened by a homosexual advance – then that can be factored into sentencing. Section 4(a) allows a very broad scope.

Interesting point – from what you’ve said about what i’ll call ‘extenuating clauses’ in other areas of law makes me tend to agree with you that provocation should be repealed.

Just a question though (again, not something I know much about so more just a general query) – are these ‘existing laws’ also prone to ambiguous interpretation and, through that, injustice? Or being ‘sentencing laws’ is it something that comes down to the disposition of the ‘sentencer’?

Matt.

The justification for the defence does not exist – as it stands in its current form. There are already provisions in the sentencing act for lowering the sentence of an offender – where it is obvious they have been provoked.

What the defence does currently is excuse the criminal liability of the offender. That is unjust. Murdering homosexuals should not be excused down to manslaughter just because they are homosexuals.

So any ‘good’ reason for keeping the defence is already included in other parts of the law. So complete repeal is justified – in my view. Im sorry if thats a bit ramblomatic, this is a very murky area of law.

I’ll admit I know next to nothing about law, which includes what you’ve said about ‘provocation’ (hence why I found this article so interesting).

About my only comment would be that, whilst I agree with you totally that this law leaves a lot of room for racial/gender/homophobic abuse, there must also certainly be plenty of cases where a provocation defense is justified? Hence, are you saying that the law should be repealed entirely or rewritten in a less ambiguous fashion?

Matt.