THE LAW AND THE BEAST WITHIN
UPDATE:
Today in NSW, senior judicial figures say provocation as a defence for murder should be abolished.
They say they are alarmed and “startled” by recent cases involving the provocation defence, with the DPP Lloyd Babb SC calling for it to be scrapped because it is “illogical” and leads to a “culture of blaming victims”.
His concerns come as a judge told The Daily Telegraph the provocation defence is merely a “ploy to avoid harsher sentence” and was being used successfully by those charged with murder. One senior prosecutor added the defence had been “exploited” by those who commit violent crimes on nothing more than the suspicion of infidelity, with the most recent cases setting “a dangerous precedent.”
Recently, Tracey Spicer wrote on the issue for The Hoopla…
Philosophical matters of law are usually left to the High Court.
However, the NSW Upper House is inquiring into what separates us from animals.
In Renaissance Europe “rational man” was portrayed as someone who “knows, chooses, and acts”. Yet scratch the surface and you will find the beast within.
In the words of novelist and clergyman George Macdonald, “A beast does not know that he is a beast, and the nearer a man gets to being a beast, the less he knows it”.
This seems to be the rationale behind NSW continuing to allow a partial defence of provocation to murder. Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia have abolished it, while Queensland has limited use.
Put simply, the law allows men who’ve killed their partners in a fit of jealous rage to face the lesser charge of manslaughter.
“It is invariably in circumstances where they allege they have been insulted, mocked, humiliated, or spurned,” according to Ken Parish, legal academic at Charles Darwin University.
Another term for it is the ‘gay panic’ defence – used by men who murder to affirm their masculinity after a homosexual advance.
Tragically, it took the death of Sydney woman Manpreet Kaur at the hands of her husband for the law to be re-asessed. Chamanjot Singh slashed her throat eight times with a box cutter. Why? Because he believed she’d been unfaithful. He was sentenced to six years’ jail for manslaughter.
| Page 1 of 2 | next >> |
17 Responses to this article
-
Matt August 14, 2012
Completely agree Tracey. Unfortunately it’s one of several laws in NSW where the perpetrator of a serious criminal act receives only a watered down sentence. But you are correct that particular excuse is lunacy.
My personal pet hate is the one where you can plunge a knife into the body of another human being and only get charged with assault. Apparently the law is of the opinion that every knife wielding idiot is basically a skilled surgeon who can determine what cuts are safe and what cuts are not. “Yes I stabbed him in the chest your Honour but I didn’t mean to kill him”…….. -
Nat August 14, 2012
Well said Tracey. It disheartens me that women are still blamed for their own murder.
If your wife cheats, divorce her. -
Carz August 14, 2012
It is not the law itself that is an issue but rather the abuse of the law by (usually) men who acted in a manner that is anything but reasonable. After having spent years praying that my (now ex) husband would drive off a cliff so the abuse would end I can understand how a woman could, after years of abuse, be driven to kill an abusive partner, and whenthis occurs without immediate threat (despite the fact that the threat is present day in and day out) selling it as self-defence can be difficult. Unfortunately there is no easy solution to this, but I agree that something must be done to stop abusers killing their partners then claiming provocation.
-
Tracey August 14, 2012
So sorry to hear about your terrible time at the hands of your ex. You are right – it’s extremely difficult to prove self-defence, even after years of sustained abuse. Maybe the QLD law is the right way to go – where partial provocation is retained, but only for victims of domestic violence. Take care. x
-
The Huntress August 14, 2012
The provocation defence makes me sick, especially when I consider how many times I was accused of being unfaithful by my exes (I’ve never been unfaitful in my life! One of these accusations was made based upon a photo of a group of people. I was one of the people in the group photo, which consisted of about a dozen women and one man, who my ex decided I was ‘obviously’ having an affair with) and violently rebuked for it. Suspicions of infidelity do not excuse jealous rage. Even an admission of infidelity does not excuse jealous rage.
While I completely understand how women need to utilise a defence of self defence in some cases, I cannot see how provocation can ever be utilised as a defence. Real heroes walk away.
-
Ann-Maree August 14, 2012
ATTN: Family Voice of Australia – I have not been a practising Christian for a long time but I do remember that “Thou shalt not kill” is a commandment. Something you lot purportedly uphold and treasure. Which side of the fence do you lot want to sit on??
Self defence is definitely a legitimate defence. However, how many women have been charged with murder because they “lost it” because a man was putting the moves on them. Not many (if any) compared to the number of men who use the gay panic defence.
-
sami August 14, 2012
Why the anti-men slant? I agree that it’s a disgrace and such a law is unacceptable but women can be perpetrators and men can be victims. Granted it’s not the overwhelming majority but this article makes it sound as if this law is to look after scummy men and not scummy women too.
“In 2012, it is no longer reasonable for a man to draw his sword to seek vengeance.” – or a woman for that matter.
Anyway there’s no excuse for hurting or killing someone… not only should the perpetrator be jailed for a VERY long time there also needs to be better facilities and resources in place for people who need to escape violence in their homes. From what I understand these events are rarely isolated- there will usually be abuse before it reaches the murder stage.
My comment is not very well written and I’m sure it doesn’t completely make sense but I think you can pick up what I’m putting down.
-
JessB August 14, 2012
I struggled with that too, Sami. I wonder why the ‘battered wife syndrome’ was touched on so lightly in the article. Surely it is wrong for everyone to give into violent impulses and inflict them on another person? When that ends in death, it is even more wrong.
I can understand how one partner can be so dominated in the relationship that they aren’t able to bring themselves to leave a clearly unhealthy situation, but I don’t agree with that as a defense for murder. I think the legal system and police should be empowered to better protect people in those situations who leave and are fearful of retribution, but I don’t think those people should be able to take justice – or revenge – into their own hands.
-
-
sami August 14, 2012
In an ideal world there would be no battered wife syndrome. The fact that some people have no choice but to endure years of torment by the person who is supposed to love them the most is just depressing and scary. There needs to be more safe places. I can imagine it’d be hard to find the resources to simply find somewhere to live (without being tracked down again, for a start) and support yourself, especially as abusers usually keep their victims sheltered and cut off from family and friends. Restraining orders need to be taken seriously by police and courts. These are peoples lives at risk. But what can we do?
For an abused person to kill someone in self defence is so terrible. How they deal with that emotionally I don’t know. I remember seeing something about it once on Australian Story- a woman and her kids had been basically hunted and stalked by her former husband after years of abuse. She ended up killing him in self defence as he tried to kill her. If she had been able to seek adequate protection and if he had been punished for his previous crimes it never would’ve come to that.
Hopefully not having this law is a start. But that only deals with the consequences of a death… prevention is better than cure.
-
Twinarp August 14, 2012
I am appalled at “Family Voice Australia” who seem to want adultery (not a crime since 1975) to be used as a ‘defence’, why?
Oh, because the menz would be such animals that they wouldn’t be able to control themselves.
Never trust a group with “Family” or “Marriage” in their names.
Who do these people think they are? -
Jasmine Yow August 14, 2012
Hi Tracey, please read FamilyVoice’s media release here http://www.fava.org.au/news/2012/can-provocation-ever-be-a-partial-defence-to-murder-/
I encourage readers to register on the FamilyVoice website to access the full submission, which explains our position accurately.
-
Ro. Watson August 14, 2012
This is just not right.I remember Balwant Kaur’s death at a womens’ refuge in London in early eighties.Law reform is necessary~ along with mental health supports to stop men hurting women.
-
Rhoda August 14, 2012
Ann-Maree said it for me.
ATTN: Family Voice of Australia – I have not been a practising Christian for a long time but I do remember that “Thou shalt not kill” is a commandment. Something you lot purportedly uphold and treasure. Which side of the fence do you lot want to sit on??
It’s ridiculous to allow men to think they can kill a wife because she is unfaithful. What are they thinking? And give the same defence to a woman? Ha!
-
lynda August 17, 2012
This is what we get for allowing all these different cultures into our country…they can do what they like over there and think they can do the same here…..and they want Sharia-Law!!!…Stupid Judge this was murder and should have got life
-
Janet August 18, 2012
I would think that finding your husband/wife/partner in bed (or elsewhere) having sex with someone else is a great advantage to the rest of your life. You would not want to spare one extra minute with the wrong person, which they obviously would be. To kill them? Talk about carrying baggage around for the rest of your life. not to mention interfering with their autonomy. The law should recognise this, as it does with any defence of revenge.
