Just sit there and take it.....

so the government wants to stop people from using the excuse that they were ‘provoked’ to murder someone. This is following the attempt by Clayton Weatherston to use provocation to get his charge reduced to manslaughter from murder for stabbing his ex 216 times (the Jury found him guilty of murder in the end).

Personally I can see cases where I would be both for it and against this law change.

What really bothers me is the extreme cases such as “battered wife syndrome”, this is a condition that most psychologists agree is very real and has been used in court (don't know if it's been used in NZ though). Now NZ doesn’t have the best track record for treatment of women, if one of those women snaps at her abusive husband / partner and kills him, this law would now brand her a murderer (with the accompanying increased sentence). I don’t think the law would be fair in that instance.

This law completely ignores the fact that as human beings we affect each other with what we do and what we say.

I realise the argument against this is “you can’t go around blaming others for your own actions”, which is something I normally advocate, but there are extreme cases where using provocation as a defence is in fact justified, like the battered wife as a first example.

What about kids being bullied in school – the amount of shit some kids have to put up with at school is atrocious, in fact it amazes me that we haven’t had any Columbine style shootings here yet!! Now I’m not saying having a high school shooting spree is OK if you’ve been bullied, but I am saying that I believe provocation should definitely be considered when forming a judgement and deciding on a sentence afterwards.

Battered Woman's Syndrome has been used in certain circumstances - Ruka vs DPB comes to mind:

http://www.workandincome.govt.nz/manuals-and-procedures/income_support/main_benefits/domestic_purposes_benefit_-_women_alone/changes_and_reviews_-_dpb_-_women_alone/relationship_status_dpb_women_alone-07.htm

a. Well currently it would brand her a "manslaughterer", so it's only changing the term
b. Not necessarily with an increased sentence at all - there is a general agreement that provocation will become a factor at sentencing so that the sentence is reduced accordingly.

We have to remember that provocation just changes you being found guilty of murder or manslaughter. I think that's wrong - if you killed someone with intent that's murder. The sentence should then take into account the factors surrounding it.