Persuasive Essay On Provocation

Buzizi [2013]. The objective requirement needed to prove provocation and reduce the conviction to manslaughter was not apparent in the case, as a reasonable or ordinary person would likely have left the area, either by not intervening in the altercation in the first place or by deciding to leave once the victim had dropped his knife. The subjective requirement needed to prove provocation was not met either, as Buzizi’s recollection of the events suggested that he had full awareness of his actions. Also, although he had pent up emotions, when the victim dropped his knife, once again, there was an obvious opportunity for Buzizi to think for a moment and make the decision to get away. This would have mitigated the feelings of fear Buzizi stated he had felt, and it would not have come at the cost of a life. However, Buzizi instead made the conscious decision to stab the victim multiple times, ending his life. Since the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was actually accepted, this spells out a need for the Criminal Code to clarify some of the ambiguities with respect to provocation. For instance, in Section 232 (2) where it states that an ordinary person is deprived of self-control, it may be wise to specify the level of proportionality required between the lack of self-control and the degree of the wrongfulness of the provoking act. If the criminal law allows the threat of an exacto knife to justify stabbing the holder of that exacto knife multiple times when their guard is down, then soon the criminal law may allow future actions that are even more disproportionate to the circumstances to go relatively

Defences for Murder There are only three partial defences for murder; suicide pact, provocation-the loss of self control and reaction must be instantaneous and diminished responsibility. Amongst the three mentioned two are most frequently used, these are provocation and diminished responsibility, and only one full defence, self defence. These defences are used to reduce the sentence charge by the defendant to manslaughter from murder. In the following text I will be examining how men use provocation and diminished responsibility to walk free from murder.

In the case of Dave and Edward however, only 2 of these 3 criteria are present, as something was said or done by Edward (he swore at Dave before walking off), and what Dave did was in a hot blooded response, as he went straight to the house, grabbed the knife and “ran after” Edward, however the defence fails when it comes down to the reasonable man test, as a reasonable man would not run after another man with a knife and stab them in the leg, therefore the defence of provocation cannot be applied, as per Ahluwalia.

This essay will ultimately contend that the Sentencing Amendment (Coward 's Punch Manslaughter and Other Matters) Act 2014 is an ill-founded initiative made by legislators, giving the impression of a powerful Government without truly reducing the violence. Using a close reading of each provision of the legislation in unison with extrinsic materials, this piece will outline the efficacy, necessity and likely impacts of the Act.

Murdering someone may not be seen as been a proportionate response. However, recognition of the ongoing nature of domestic violence may result in the offender receiving a light sentence or even a good behaviour bond for their crime. The removal of the provocation defence may in fact disadvantage women who see no other alternative than to defend themselves against abusive partners.

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.

In this argument paper I will be examining whether or not Rayon McIntosh was unethical in his defense against an attack from Denise Darbeau and Rachel Edwards at his place of employment McDonalds. At what point do you go from defending yourself to being the attacker. That is the question in the case of Rayon’s situation.

In Australian society, which prides itself on being a just society displaying equality and justice throughout its laws, Australians get away with murder. Provocation is the act of losing control after being provoked or angered in some way. A successful provocation defence can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter. All Australians who commit a serious crime, such as murder, should be punished equally and take full responsibility for their actions. It is a violation of justice if one person can get away with murder using provocation and another cannot. It does not demonstrate equality among all Australians. The law of provocation is a biased law, which discriminates amongst Australians. Therefore, it needs to be abolished.

The hypothesis is more easily stated than proved. For obvious reasons, there are no precise data on the intention of an attacker toward his vic- tim-whether he wished to wound or injure, with some apprehension of the risk of death or some desire to kill, or whether he single-mindedly intended to kill at any cost. Either of these mental states would be con- sistent with a finding of murder if homicide results. But the more am- biguous intention might well lead to the termination of an attack before lethal consequences ensue. The barroom fight ends when one of the two participants has been stabbed, shot, or beaten into submission.3 At that point the issue has been decided. Similarly, the violent domestic dispute may end decisively without fatal

You move to your right, raise your gun, and then BANG! Shoot your opponent in the head. WIthout hesitation, you move on, this time to the left, switching your weapon to a long, shiny knife in the nick of time to be able to impale a new man. You move on again, still without hesitation. Why would there be hesitation? After all, you have been doing this for hours, you’re used to the image that flashes across the screen as you kill a man. You love video games, and recently you’ve been playing the violent ones more and more often. But so have millions of other people around the world, and that number just keeps increasing. So does this make you a killer? Does it make you and the millions of other people playing bad people because you simulate violence?

Source: CDC, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Health, United States, 2002. Flegal et. al. JAMA. 2002;288:1723-7. NIH, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in Adults, 1998.

“Your assignment is to write a persuasive essay and present it to the class in a week. You will be graded based on how convincing it is. Today we will be choosing topics,” announced Mr. Bowerbank, my 7th grade English teacher and ruler of classroom 110. My class simultaneously groaned at the prospect of work. I simply lifted my head with intrigue as it was already May and about time we had our first essay. He then proceeded to give examples of topics we could choose and gave us some time to think before we had to tell him our topic. My classmates were already rushing to tell the teacher their idea lest someone else steal it. That meant the usual abortion, death penalty, or drug use topics were out. I really couldn't think of anything and the teacher was slowly making his way through the remaining students like an executioner beheading criminals in a line. I have always thought that he would make a marvelous supervillain if he had a curly mustache, a tophat, and a cape. Eventually my name was called. I slowly dragged myself over to his desk. Even sitting down, he still seemed to tower over me. “What is your topic Cindy?” As usual in such desperate times, my mind turned to food. “Waffles are better than pancakes.” I figured that a waffle was just a differently shaped pancake with a nicer texture. “Hmm. Excellent topic. I look forward to your essay!” I survived to live yet another day.

Why spend money that is really needed for other things? Why live uncomfortably? Why be trapped in this hole called a home that belongs to another person? Why not live free and peacefully? When a person rents he or she usually throws away money that could be used to purchase something that belongs to them. Money is not easy to come by so why pay out hundreds toward something that is not benefit to the person paying it out. There is no good explanation for making a decision like this. The best option in a situation like this is to buy a house. Buying a house is a better option than renting an apartment.

School violence, in recent history, seems to have taken the United States by storm. Be it a shooting, such as the Columbine High School shooting in 1999, the inappropriate relationships between teacher and student, such as Stephanie Figueroa whom initiated one such relationship with her 11-year-old karate student, or the multiple fights we see on social media that take place in schools. With each passing week, we see a new story that falls in one of these categories. Today, we look at the types of, causes of and how to prevent violence in what should be a safe place and second home for our youth.

Having escaped rule from a tyrannical British government, the United States was founded on ideals of freedom and equality for all people. These fantasies of universal egalitarianism turned out to be merely that: fantasies. American history is full of stories of the oppressed struggling to get the rights they deserve and of the controversy over these issues that consequently ensues. “The Hypocrisy of American Slavery” by Frederick Douglass and “We Shall Overcome” by Lyndon B. Johnson are two speeches made confronting two of these issues. Douglass’s speech, delivered in 1852, condemns the institution of slavery and maintains that slaves are men and are therefore entitled to freedom. Johnson’s speech, on the other hand, was written in 1965 and discussed the civil rights movement. In it, he implored local governments to allow all American citizens, regardless of race, to vote. Despite the significant gap in time between these two addresses, both speakers use similar persuasive techniques, including ethos, pathos, and parallelism, to convince their audience that change needs to be implemented in America.