Talk:Provocation (law)

message: in common law places like victoria australia, provocation is only a defence to murder. is this different in other places? i would like some feedback before i edit the page. Xtra 12:42, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: question

message: "Although not a traditional provocation circumstance, some states have laws that a non-violent homosexual advance constitutes sufficient provocation to reduce a charge of murder to manslaughter."
This sounds like it should raise quite a stink...can anyone cite this?  Twin Bird 20:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a couple of citations.  It might surprise you that this is a fairly well-recognised scenario in which provocation can occur, at least in Australian law - I'm not sure about elsewhere in the world.  A few writers refer to it as a separate 'homosexual advance defence,' but the substantive law is the same as provocation.  Where the homosexual advance becomes violent, self-defence can also come into play.  Kirby J (dissenting) goes into a spirited attack on the defence in the case of Green (1997), arguing that this defence creates the impression that homophobic violence will be tolerated.  There's a fair bit of literature on the subject floating around if you're interested.  Phil500 11:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was certainly relevant in the New Zealand context, although it's been overshadowed by current government moves to abolish the defence after a similar public outcry over its abuse by a male defendant against a female homicide victim 203.114.146.129 (talk) 03:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homosexual advance? 

message: i think another example of cases where provocation is sometimes used might be adultery - coming upon your spouse with her lover - and i think you can kill them both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.122.41 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're on the right track - in fact, this is one of the earliest known applications of the defence we now know as provocation.  Remember that provocation originated as a man's defence, so killing an adulterous wife was deemed to be quite within the bounds of a reasonable man's actions in such a provocative situation.  Subsequent common law has diluted this presumption, and it is less likely that a discovery of adulterous conduct, without other provocative actions, would be sufficient.  Mere words (ie. being told of adultery by a spouse, rather than actually witnessing it) is not sufficient to prove provocation.  I have not altered the article, as this example of provocation is already listed, but hopefully this will give you some clarification.  Phil500 23:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: another example

message: can someone add something about A Time to Kill, i think its kinda appropriate....—Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.216.137 (talk) 10:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: request1

message: "Data from Australia shows that the partial defense of provocation that converts murder into manslaughter has been used successfully primarily in two circumstances: sexual infidelity where a male kills his female partner or her lover; and non-violent homosexual advances."
The source cited doesn't make this claim. If a source cannot be found, the text should be deleted. 72.74.247.17 (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor Citations 

message: Almost all the information in this article seems to be focused on provocation in cases of murder.  While this is likely the most commonly discussed area regarding provocation, the lead makes it clear that provocation is a much broader subject.  It applies in many non-fatal situations such as assault, battery, and malicious destruction of property.  In most cases it doesn't necessarily absolve a person of culpability, but the punishment handed down would tend to be lower than the same crime if done in a cold and calculated way, or for malicious and self-serving reasons.  I will try to find good sources, but I would appreciate any help from other editors reading this.Legitimus (talk) 14:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much focus on murder 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Provocation (legal). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:y0MfG_GCNSMJ:www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/F2BA1BFEED2D87EECA257A4800001BD7/$File/briefing%2520paper.provocation%2520and%2520self-defence.pdf+provocation+in+new+south+wales&hl=ro&gl=ro with https://web.archive.org/web/20140623052433/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/F2BA1BFEED2D87EECA257A4800001BD7/%24File/briefing%20paper.provocation%20and%20self-defence.pdf on http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/F2BA1BFEED2D87EECA257A4800001BD7/%24File/briefing%20paper.provocation%20and%20self-defence.pdf
*Added  tag to http://antunoviclaw.co.nz/criminal-lawyers-about/imantunovic-criminal-lawyer/
*Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:y0MfG_GCNSMJ:www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/F2BA1BFEED2D87EECA257A4800001BD7/$File/briefing%2520paper.provocation%2520and%2520self-defence.pdf+provocation+in+new+south+wales&hl=ro&gl=ro with https://web.archive.org/web/20140623052433/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/F2BA1BFEED2D87EECA257A4800001BD7/%24File/briefing%20paper.provocation%20and%20self-defence.pdf on http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/F2BA1BFEED2D87EECA257A4800001BD7/%24File/briefing%20paper.provocation%20and%20self-defence.pdf
*Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:y0MfG_GCNSMJ:www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/F2BA1BFEED2D87EECA257A4800001BD7/$File/briefing%2520paper.provocation%2520and%2520self-defence.pdf+provocation+in+new+south+wales&hl=ro&gl=ro with https://web.archive.org/web/20140623052433/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/F2BA1BFEED2D87EECA257A4800001BD7/%24File/briefing%20paper.provocation%20and%20self-defence.pdf on http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/F2BA1BFEED2D87EECA257A4800001BD7/%24File/briefing%20paper.provocation%20and%20self-defence.pdf
*Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:y0MfG_GCNSMJ:www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/F2BA1BFEED2D87EECA257A4800001BD7/$File/briefing%2520paper.provocation%2520and%2520self-defence.pdf+provocation+in+new+south+wales&hl=ro&gl=ro with https://web.archive.org/web/20140623052433/http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/F2BA1BFEED2D87EECA257A4800001BD7/%24File/briefing%20paper.provocation%20and%20self-defence.pdf on http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/Prod/parlment/publications.nsf/0/F2BA1BFEED2D87EECA257A4800001BD7/%24File/briefing%20paper.provocation%20and%20self-defence.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Provocation (legal). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619200604/http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/5k2_10.htm to http://www.ussc.gov/2009guid/5k2_10.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I do not see a need for neutrality banner, anybody to the contrary?
Mulstev (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There is nothing disputing the neutrality of that section on talk; and the tag is from 6 years ago. I removed it. 2A02:2F0F:B1FF:FFFF:0:0:6463:D75E (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality Banner?

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved. WP:RMNOMIN (closed by non-admin page mover) SilverLocust 💬 05:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Provocation (legal) →  – Standard way of disambiguating, and would follow article title formatting like Guilt (law). aaronneallucas (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 2 January 2024