Development Of Defense Of Provocation :: essays research papers

Development of Defense of ProvocationQuestion Critically evaluate the training of common law principlesapplicable to the refutation of irritation in felonious law from the decision inMancini v DPP 1942 AC 1 to Mascantonio v R (1995) 183 CLR 58. Assess thedegree to which the common law has proved pertinacious in responding ever-changingsocietal needs and expectations. Are there different legal means of achievingsubstantive justice?     At the time of the episode of Mancini the concept of incitement as adefence to murder was already a well established one dating back centuries. Itoriginated from the geezerhood when men bore arms and engaged in quarrels of violencethat oft resulted in a homicide being committed. For irritation to be anample defence to murder it needed to be something which incited immediate anger,or "passion" and which overcame a persons self control to such an extent so asto beat or swamp his reason. What this something can be h as been thesubject of existencey views through the centuries, and these views have stronglydepended upon the type of person whom the law has regarded as deservingextenuated consideration when provoked to kill. In the words of Viscount Simon"the law has to reconcile compliancy for the sanctity of human life withrecognition of the effect of provocation on human frailty. " In this regard thedifficult concept of the "reasonable man" or the "ordinary man" has developedand with it the legal doctrine that provocation must be such as would not only get under ones skin the person accused to behave as he did but as would cause an ordinary manto so lose control of himself as to act in the same sort of way. It is thereforeinteresting to render how the doctrine of common law in relation to provocationhas responded to changing societal needs and values. It also provides a useful reference issue in which the development of common law doctrine can be observed. Itis use ful to conduct a case-by-case analysis of the rule of provocation as adefence to murder in order to much effectively observe the legal evolution thathas taken place.     In the case of Mancini v DPP 1942 AC 1 the appellant had beenconvicted for murder after acute a man to death in a club. The appellantscounsel contended that the effort judge should have directed that the jury wasopen to find provocation to shorten the appellants conviction to manslaughter.Lord Simonds provided direction upon what kind of provocation would reducemurder to manslaughter. He said that the provocation must temporarily uncase