-
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
Man kills wife. Not murder (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter budj
- Start date
breaking
paint huffing moron
......what the fuck are you on about???
breaking
paint huffing moron
haven't heard about it...... 'twould help just a tad if the dude provided linkage of some sort..........
breaking
paint huffing moron
yeah exactly...... i thought "manslaughter" when i saw the subject line.....
mayhemily
Member
The interesting thing about that is the Law reform commission suggesting the abolishment of provocation as a defence for murder. What does everyone think about this?
sped_kid01
FindWhatIsYet2BeFound
i dont think provocation should be taking away
it all depends on circumstances though
its a good thing our legal system has manslaughter as a charge and not simply murder
doesnt actus reas mean they actually committed the act
and mens rea means committed with intent?
so u have to prove actus reas and mens rea for murder?
but its manslaughter if only actus reas is proved?
im confused
it all depends on circumstances though
its a good thing our legal system has manslaughter as a charge and not simply murder
doesnt actus reas mean they actually committed the act
and mens rea means committed with intent?
so u have to prove actus reas and mens rea for murder?
but its manslaughter if only actus reas is proved?
im confused
mayhemily
Member
pretty much. I mean if you have mens rea, intent to commit the crime, in the case of murder to kill the person then it can't be manslaughter because its premeditated. Overall I think criminal system does a pretty good job. I can see why they might want to get rid of provocation. Because from a moral perspective, what can wind a person up that much to commit murder? Its very subjective.
sped_kid01
FindWhatIsYet2BeFound
but provocation ( i know its no excuse) induces emotions into people...such as rage, anger, jealousy...etc...which can cause intense feelings...
so the provocation may lead to a range of emotions...which may...in extreme circumstances for some individuals..lead to death
eg. man comes home finds his wife sleeping with another man...she says "what u deserved it, come on bash me, hit me....blahblahblah"
man kills woman in rage,fury
so the provocation may lead to a range of emotions...which may...in extreme circumstances for some individuals..lead to death
eg. man comes home finds his wife sleeping with another man...she says "what u deserved it, come on bash me, hit me....blahblahblah"
man kills woman in rage,fury
sped_kid01
FindWhatIsYet2BeFound
clarification
do u study law?
when was the crimes act written? 1900? and then amended?
do u study law?
when was the crimes act written? 1900? and then amended?
mayhemily
Member
Yeah sorry I should have made myself clearer. I was talking about two separate things, firstly in reference to the previous comment on mens rea and secondly in reference to provocation.Asquithian said:
mayhemily
Member
See its interesting because if your spouse cheats on you, they havent committed a criminal offence. But if you kill them then you can get your sentence lessened from murder. Maybe im just really tired but it seems kinda ironic to me in some twisted kind of waysped_kid01 said:
sped_kid01
FindWhatIsYet2BeFound
yeah i dont mean 'cheating' was the provocation...
i mean what the woman (in the eg.) said to the man afterwards...to intensify his emotions
i mean what the woman (in the eg.) said to the man afterwards...to intensify his emotions
tattoodguy
Member
..i fully support provocation. Its fair..........fuck all the families of victims who want to bitch..........................cos a family memember got killled cos they were sluttty/ lying or a general pain in the arse.
most dudes who killl there wifes have a good reason --- that should be taken into account. goood on them.
we have a fucking bulll shit system.
isnt marriage a contract etc.............so how can u just break it.
by cheating/divorces etc .and expect no consequences.... to me it is a crime and if we had a reasonable legal system it would reflect that.............and by all means should be taken into account.......if the spouse retaliates and kills them.....
why should ur life be fucked up and ur kids lives be fucked up cos someone else is a scum bag.........like ur spouse etc..............
if you love someone......ur life should be in their hands ------------if my future wife killed me .........i woudlnt want her charged............im her property and vice verssa.
thats how i recon the law should be.
on my wedding contract ........................i would like i clause saying..............cheating and alot of other things etc etc..........gives me the right to bash u........................im not joking........................thats going to be part of my wedding vows.
most dudes who killl there wifes have a good reason --- that should be taken into account. goood on them.
we have a fucking bulll shit system.
isnt marriage a contract etc.............so how can u just break it.
by cheating/divorces etc .and expect no consequences.... to me it is a crime and if we had a reasonable legal system it would reflect that.............and by all means should be taken into account.......if the spouse retaliates and kills them.....
why should ur life be fucked up and ur kids lives be fucked up cos someone else is a scum bag.........like ur spouse etc..............
if you love someone......ur life should be in their hands ------------if my future wife killed me .........i woudlnt want her charged............im her property and vice verssa.
thats how i recon the law should be.
on my wedding contract ........................i would like i clause saying..............cheating and alot of other things etc etc..........gives me the right to bash u........................im not joking........................thats going to be part of my wedding vows.
Last edited:
Killing, I beleive, should never ever be a solution. To hit might of been alright, but to mediate such a ferocious attack to kill someone just because they said some words at you should'nt be on. Im not sayin that the provacation law sould be abolished, but their should be other factors taken into consideration before exercising this right. Like, if someone tries to rape me, shit i'd do just about anything to defend myslelf, even if it meant having a gun in my hand.
but the point is that you ar in control of the reaction you make. Well you should be anyway. This is exceptionally dfficult, but man is edowed with a brilliant brain to attain such high mental acuteness.
Its shit when society says, "according to the doings of the average man..." No one whatsoever, in my opinion, should mould themselves against the average man, or the man of statstics. Saying that the average man wouldn't react/ would react, according to the situation and basing an arguement regarding this is bulshit.
In conclusion: One should be able to, or should aim to, control their reaction to any situation. I beleive that the law of provocation should exist to certain extents, but this case should be exempt from it.
but the point is that you ar in control of the reaction you make. Well you should be anyway. This is exceptionally dfficult, but man is edowed with a brilliant brain to attain such high mental acuteness.
Its shit when society says, "according to the doings of the average man..." No one whatsoever, in my opinion, should mould themselves against the average man, or the man of statstics. Saying that the average man wouldn't react/ would react, according to the situation and basing an arguement regarding this is bulshit.
In conclusion: One should be able to, or should aim to, control their reaction to any situation. I beleive that the law of provocation should exist to certain extents, but this case should be exempt from it.
lukebennett
Happy Member
from what ive heard he was abusive to his wife. she has a right to leave him. cheating is not enough of an excuse to kill someone. there was the intent to kill there so i think it should be classified as murder (considering his history)
lukebennett
Happy Member
tattoodguy said:
apparently this guy was abusive to her for quite sometime. there was provocation for her to kill him. he thus didnt meet his marriage contract and she probably wanted to leave the marriage anyways but thats almost impossible in these relationships. if he was abusive it show he is very violent and may not have the more rational reasons for behaving like he does. id definately consider it murder.
btw im not writing this so much from a legal point of view
Last edited:
Asquithian said:How the fuck do you know?
Its all very high and mighty of you to suggest that all humans can control their reactions but some can't.
A famous case of provocation is one called Masciantionio
Essentially an old man who had a condition that allowed him to loose him temper sometimes and blackout killed his daughters Boy friend.
He was not fond of her bf. He felt she abused him. He felt that he treated her badly.
One day the BF came to the house to see the daughter. the Bf ignored the fathers attempts to talk to him. The Daughter then left with the BF. The father made more attempts to talk to the bf. the BF then abused him verbally and then kicked him as we walked away. The father blacked out and and stabbed the BF in the neck...
This doesnt give a very good example of the law of provocation because all I have done is recouted the facts.
If you really want to know why the victorian court allowed provocation maybe you should educate yourself and read the judgment...
Do you really wonder why law and order is 'shifting to the right' in NSW? I am sorry, but at times the system seems far too open to abuse and such cases hardly help the cause of those pushing for progressive reform.
OK
'The Provocation
It used to be said that mere words (and in particular a confession of adultery) would never suffice to provocation ( Holmes [1946] AC 588) but see Parker (1963) 111 CLR 610 and Moffa (1977) 138 CLR 601. It is not necessary to show that the words are 'grossly insulting': Lees [1999] NSWCCA 301. The provocation needn't come shortly before the killing: Chhay (1994) 72 A Crim R 1.'
The final two lines... Please tell me, a pleb, whether or not I am incorrect in thinking that the final two lines hardly seem to be definitive in any sense at all?
Also, I gather that an 'ordinary' person is determined on a case by case basis, yet what would the benchmarks be? Societal generalisations and the words of experts?
I'm just wondering, but at the same time your arrogant tone is pissing me off.
'The Provocation
It used to be said that mere words (and in particular a confession of adultery) would never suffice to provocation ( Holmes [1946] AC 588) but see Parker (1963) 111 CLR 610 and Moffa (1977) 138 CLR 601. It is not necessary to show that the words are 'grossly insulting': Lees [1999] NSWCCA 301. The provocation needn't come shortly before the killing: Chhay (1994) 72 A Crim R 1.'
The final two lines... Please tell me, a pleb, whether or not I am incorrect in thinking that the final two lines hardly seem to be definitive in any sense at all?
Also, I gather that an 'ordinary' person is determined on a case by case basis, yet what would the benchmarks be? Societal generalisations and the words of experts?
I'm just wondering, but at the same time your arrogant tone is pissing me off.
lukebennett
Happy Member
asqy, cant they have considered why she cheated though? he was abusive. thats as much a violation of the marriage isnt it?