Back in the day, when I was in high school, it was not unusual for presumably straight teens to pass themselves off as hustlers in order to beat and rob their “tricks” or just to beat them up for kicks. Whenever they were busted, they invariably would claim that they were reacting to a improper sexual overture. Gay men being considered criminals and perverts at that time made this an easy out. Such “improper” conduct could be nothing more than a verbal invitation to sex. It had nothing whatever to do with a legal defense of retaliatory violence by women against abusive men and everything to do with the privileging of male heterosexuality.

Violence against homosexuals was considered justified simply by virtue of the fact that they were homosexuals.

The first usage of this type of argument was actually women claiming that they had a justifiable reason for killing their partners. Now, a lawyer seems to have established the same defense to use, instead of against straight men, against gays.

To actually be consistant, it would require our judicial system to acknowledge that crimes are not justifiable, something that they are not likely to do soon.

Yeah, it’s like Paul in Stephen King’s book Misery! How dare Paul kill someone who was holding him hostage and had committed dozens of violent acts against him, merely because Paul was certain that she’d be violent against him in the future?

Remember, Anne wasn’t attacking Paul at the time he attacked and killed her (at least, she wasn’t in the novel). She was bringing him caviar and didn’t suspect a thing; she thought they were getting along very well.

Paul in Misery was a murderer. The horrible moral flaw of the novel is that it didn’t end with Paul being tried and put in prison for killing Anne Wilkes.

Ah, are you talking about a particular context on this, Rand? “Crimes of passion” have been around a long time. If I do the research, do you think I won’t find men getting away with killing a cheating spouse or their lover when caught in the act of betrayal a long time before women started using a battered spouse defense? I”m not just talking the U.S. - maybe you are. But even so, I’m willing to bet they’re out there.

To actually be consistant, it would require our judicial system to acknowledge that crimes are not justifiable, something that they are not likely to do soon.

Thanks for providing all the information Idiot/Savant. There have been some really high profile cases where battered women have not been able to use the provocation (although I can never remember the name of hte most famous one, is it Gay Oakes, or am I confusing things). I’m unconvinced with the law society’s proposal though - I’m not sure I trust the way judges would use discretion in sentancing.

But that said, I don’t know the situation on the ground down there, and the activists may well be correct.

This isn’t a case of throwing out babies with bathwater; its a case of removing a legal defence which excuses the behaviour of violent thugs with poor impulse control.

I am sure there are a lot of horror stories. Provocation defenses have a pretty long history, however, and are used in what I would consider a feminist fashion (battered spouses in proactive self-defense, for example); an outright revocation of provocation as a defense would seem to be rather precipitous. Baby, bathwater, etc.

b) even if she was trespassing, that is not a blanket license for violence. Specifically, the right to use force to prevent or evict trespassers specifically excludes striking or causing bodily harm.

b) s169 applies only to murder. There is no defence of “provocation” for assault in New Zealand - though it can clearly be considered a mitigating factor by a sentencing judge.

That’s not what the “gay panic” defense is.

Presumably, Maia is discussing what it means in New Zealand, not in the US. Are you certain that what you’re saying here is true of NZ practice?

I’m not sure what you’re saying vis a vis Craig Busch. Nobody’s humanity is being questioned. The principle being cited is an ancient one, that some circumstances (like finding a partner in bed with other people) are thought to be enough to overcome the presumption of rationality. It’s not legal to conduct an assault under those circumstances (this guy seems like a real piece of work) but it’s considered less severe an offense than a cold-blooded assault.

While supposedly being about culpability and recognising “human frailty” (I’m sorry, murder is not a human fraility. The law should expect better of people), the provocation defence really undermines equality under the law. Whether someone “counts” as a person or a “worthy” victim should not be a question to be decided by a jury.