The Defense And Its Reliability

Determining whether Queensland should re-introduce capital punishment as a sentence will be the focus of this assignment. Capital punishment, also

The criminal justice system plays a fundamental role in achieving justice, as the system aims to protect all members of the community fairly and equally. However, in the criminal case of R v Loveridge, it is evident that the justice system fails to apply the law to equally balance the needs of the victims and the community. In this case, the offender Kieran Loveridge pleaded guilty to five counts of offences; three charges of common assault, one charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one charge of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, the victim being Thomas Kelly, Loveridge received 4 years’ non-parole for manslaughter, Loveridge’s total effective sentence therefore is 7 years and 2 months with an effective

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.

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.’

Provocation was previously controlled under S2 of the homicide act 1957, the act stated where a person kills or is party to a killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing. The new defence S54-56 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 replaced defence of Provocation S3 Homicide Act 1957; it came into force October 2010.

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.

Question 4 - Assess the use of the defence of provocation in achieving justice for victims, offenders and society. (10 marks)

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 casualty helps in deciding if the case is the first degree or second degree. Furthermore, in some jurisdiction, the degrees of manslaughter are known as voluntary or involuntary manslaughter and non-negligent or negligent manslaughter. A person who has intentions to harm victims will face the most serious forms of manslaughter. Any offender that carries out an assault in a spontaneous act of violence with little time of deliberation will be legally processed as a first-degree manslaughter case. When a person kills or harms someone because of speeding, carelessness, or recklessness these cases or most of the time are considered as second-degree manslaughter. These types of cases consideration are the negligent or illicit behavior of the offender. Nonetheless, in this article it shows the commitment to regard provocation manslaughter as an offense as regulating hypothetical issues and that it is conceivable to do this as a functional issue (Huigens, 2011). The best hypothetical depiction of provocation manslaughter is as an offense and not as a partial justification defense or as an incomplete reason commenced a fractional loss of dependable

An innocent man is wrongly executed whilst a man who raped and murdered a mother and her thirteen year old daughter spends the rest of his life with three meals a day and cable television. Which of these is the bigger injustice? The use of the death penalty to punish serious crimes is a very controversial topic and there is much debate surrounding the issue. This paper will briefly discuss arguments supporting and against the use of the death penalty.

There has been debate within the Australian Government about whether the defence of provocation should be changed or abolished. Over the years this defence has undergone changes through interpretation in cases and through legislative amendments. “Provocation; a totally flawed defence that has no place in Australia criminal law irrespective of sentencing regime”. These are the words of Andrew Hemming, a Senior Lecturer of Law within the School of Law and Justice at University of Southern Queensland. He states that provocation laws should be completely abolished throughout the whole of Australia not just in a few jurisdictions (Hemming, 2010). The current provocation laws in Queensland allow criminals to unethically downgrade their sentence

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.

Scots Criminal Law recognises that sometimes people take the life of another due to a sudden temporary loss of self-control. In such circumstances where the perpetrator killed due to the fear of serious violence or discovery of sexual infidelity, being able to successfully prove that the perpetrator had been provoked to kill their victim is vital because the defence of provocation can mitigate a murder charge of murder to voluntary culpable homicide. In this essay, the discussion will involve assessing

The Judge held that the phrase “sudden and temporary loss of control’ summarizes the main idea of the defence of provocation, and that its main purpose as a defence is strictly concerned with the actions of an individual who as not that that moment master of his own mind. However, the longer the interval of time between the provocation and the fatal act the stronger the evidence on deliberation.11

From an early age, children are taught that murder is morally wrong. In today’s complex society that is impeded by unsettling periods of civil unrest, it is an expectation for everyone to acknowledge and accept that murder is one of the worst crimes individuals can commit. Perhaps it can be said that the death penalty is one of our legal system’s biggest contradictions of itself, as, if someone commits murder (or another heinous crime of that caliber), such ‘murderers’ will, in states that have capital punishment laws, be sent to Death Row and ultimately murdered in order to prevent potential future crimes by such perpetrators. I believe that the death penalty is wrong not only as it is immoral to take a life, but also, such ineffective laws waste money and do not deter crime.