Essay on Defences for Murder

Despite recent reforms on the law of murder and voluntary manslaughter; including the special defence of diminished responsibility and loss of control, there are still inconsistencies present making the law unsatisfactory. This area of the law is in ‘dire need of reform’; as pointed out by the Law Commission in their 2006 report; Murder, Manslaughter and infanticide. The report stated how ‘The Law governing homicide in England and Wales is a rickety structure built upon shaky foundations.’

The recently passed ‘Sentencing Amendment (Coward’s Punch Manslaughter and Other Matters)’ arose within a highly politicized context and has led to controversy. The amendment was introduced in response to a perceived increase need to legislate on deaths caused by king hit punches or “coward’s punch”. It amends both the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) and the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), by defining a punch to head or neck as dangerous act, introducing a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for manslaughter by one punch, and increases the mandatory minimum sentence for manslaughter by gross violence to 10 years . However, there is likely little need for this legislation, as pre-existing law was already capable of dealing with the offence, and the implementation of this legislation will likely fail to effectively achieve its purpose. Moreover, the introduction, or increase, of a mandatory sentence will be unlikely to effectively deter individuals, and will remove the courts discretion regarding sentencing. In this essay I will argue that the legislation is unneeded to prosecute those who king hit others, and that it will likely fail to have its intended effect.

The Law Commission had proposed removing the loss of control criteria completely. This was because it was recognised that women in abusive relationships may kill from a combination of anger fear, frustration and a sense of desperation. The government decided not to follow this proposal. D must prove loss of self-control. The only concession is that loss of control need not be sudden. It is probable that some abused women will not be able to use the defence.

Accordingly, the defence of provocation can arguably be described as `sexist,’ `out-dated’ and `unfair’ for battered women. Nevertheless it can validly be said that battered women who kill in fear are not anymore of a danger to society than men who kill in anger. Consequently, the question arises as to whether the battered women ought to be considered equally culpable as someone who kills in cold-blood? Whether they should, ought to be a question left for the jury to determine and when it comes to the sentencing of battered women the judge ought to have discretion as to the sentence in light of all the circumstances which led to killing. Evidently, a balance needs to be obtained when making a concession for the frailty of men and women who are not only physically different, but their reactions can also be said to be different. Consequently, either sexual infidelity should not constitute as a provocative act or the plight of the battered women ought to be

There are many issues with provocation, however one of the main problems is the misuse of the defence when putting it forward in court. It is most commonly misused by men who have killed their partners for infidelity, or during a fight, to downgrade their murder charges to manslaughter. An example of this, is the case of Damian Sebo (R v Sebo [2007] QCA 426). In this case, Damian Sebo attacked his 16-year-old ex- girlfriend Taryn Hunt over the head with a steering wheel lock, after she taunted him with claims that she had been cheating on him. At first Sebo claimed he had nothing to do with her murder, however later confessed, stating it was all her fault, that her taunts and manipulation had provoked him into doing it. Two days later she was

“Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use violence to get what they want,” by the religious sister Mother Teresa. This quote shows that places where abortion is legalized women have the freedom to make abortion behind the name of law without feeling pity on their unborn baby. Based on USA abortion statistics, women give three reasons why they choose abortion. The statistics show that, “3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they can not afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent”(Loxafamosity Ministries). However, these reasons are not enough

Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with a fine, or with both, if

This challenge illuminates that a woman is less than a man and needs special treatment in order to be on the same level as him. By using this platform as a plea for self-defense the woman is falling into a submissive role. She exhibit an ignorance in how to state her case and defend herself against the penalties that come with murder. Battered Women Syndrome shows that the woman cannot articulate her case clearly and concisely for the jury to understand. As a result she must rely and chooses to rely on the crutch of Battered Women Syndrome. This challenge is also saying that just because a female can commit the act does not mean she can handle the consequences like a man

Provocation is an arising contemporary issue, the effectiveness of both legal and non-legal responses have significantly impacted on the reform of the laws relating to it. Provocation is a partial defence act that can be used by someone who has killed another person if they claimed to be induced with anger or provoked to do it. It can be used to lessen the severity of a charge as the person can say they were provoked into killing someone, pleading guilty of a charge of voluntary manslaughter rather than one of murder which has a longer sentence. Current issues that have risen from this defence are the misuse or rather unfair exploitation of it that has allowed some to get away with murder. Due to this, reform of the law is needed as

Criminal law is an aspect of this society where a regulated environment for the people of today can be maintained. Strict rules are hence put in place; however, if they are disregarded, certain punishments are reinforced. Many citizens propose whether the current legal system of balancing rights and justice is being done so effectively. Specifically, the partial defence of provocation is increasingly protested on in terms of its accuracy in providing criminals with a equitable prosecution. The principle initially arose to ensure that a less ‘blameworthy’ person who was involved in an act of murder would not face the mandatory death penalty. However, as the death penalty has been removed from Australia’s law system, people question whether provocation is required as a defence in current societal backgrounds. Queensland, in particular, currently retains the partial defence with many sentences being reduced from murder to manslaughter. In order to evaluate the defence and its reliability, the criminal code as well as specific cases will be discussed. In doing so, recommendations will then be formulated in terms of whether the defence should be maintained within today’s communities.

Knowledge of violence against women has increased in recent decades. However, the legal system has not yet caught up. The rigid definition of what constitutes self-defense has led to the conviction of many battered women who kill their partners. Through a legal and psychological lens many have examined this phenomenon, delving deeper than the superficial and one-dimensional definitions set by the courts.

    The death penalty, as administered by states based on their individual laws, is considered capital punishment, the purpose of which is to penalize criminals convicted of murder or other heinous crimes (Fabian).  The death penalty issue has been the focus of much controversy in recent years, even though capital punishment has been a part of our country's history since the beginning.  Crimes in colonial times, such as murder and theft of livestock were dealt with swiftly and decisively ("The Death Penalty...").  Criminals were hanged shortly after their trial, in public executions. This practice was then considered just punishment for those crimes.  Recently though, the focus

The Supreme Court case, R v Murray[4], states that the appellant pleaded not guilty to one charge of murder – where the appellant was found guilty of manslaughter – where, although the appellant intended to kill the deceased, he was only criminally responsible for manslaughter because of provocation under section 304[5] - where the appellant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment under section 161B[6] - where there was a declaration that the applicant had been convicted of a serious violence offence. Where the case R v McDougall and Collas[7] was applied as a precedent to the final decision of the case.

"Most capital crimes are committed in the heat of the moment. Most capital crimes are committed during moments of great emotional stress or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, when logical thinking has been suspended. Many capital crimes are committed by the badly emotionally-damaged or mentally ill. In such cases, violence is inflicted by persons unable to appreciate the consequences to themselves as well as to others. Even when crime is planned, the criminal ordinarily concentrates on escaping detection, arrest, and conviction. The threat of even the severest punishment will not discourage those who expect to escape detection and arrest. It is impossible to imagine how the threat of any punishment could prevent a crime that is not premeditated.”

The precise question at issue in this essay is the moral standing of capital punishment. Taking the teachings of the largest Christian denomination (Catholic) as a starting point, some say that the presentation of capital punishment in the Catechism of 1992 (#2266) differs surely in restrictiveness from the teaching of the Catechism of 1566. And that the revised Catechism of 1997 is even more restrictive. Leet's examine these ane other aspects of the morality of capital punishment.