Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/16423 Record ID: d7e543ee-ca6f-488e-855c-7236efed25ab
Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Ramsey, C. B | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-06-30T23:25:54Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2022-06-30T23:25:54Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2010 | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | No 1 Vol.: 100 | en |
| dc.identifier.issn | 0091-4169 | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/16423 | - |
| dc.format | Pages 33-108 | en |
| dc.language | en | en |
| dc.title | PROVOKING CHANGE: COMPARATIVE INSIGHTS ON FEMINIST HOMICIDE LAW REFORM | en |
| dc.title.alternative | Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology | en |
| dc.type | Journal Article | en |
| dc.identifier.catalogid | 12098 | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | new_record | en |
| dc.description.notes | The provocation defense, which mitigates murder to manslaughter for killings perpetrated in the heat of passion, is one of the most controversial doctrines in the criminal law because of its perceived gender bias; yet most American scholars and lawmakers have not recommended that it be abolished. This Article analyzes trendsetting feminist homicide law reforms, including the abolition of the provocation defense in three Australian jurisdictions, places these reforms in historical context, and assesses their applicability to the United States. It ultimately advocates reintroducing the concept of justified emotion, grounded in modern equality principles and social values, as a requirement for voluntary manslaughter mitigation. Two insights guide this Article's critique of partial excuses for murder. First, the revised legal history of intimate-partner homicide presented here demonstrates that the modern version of the provocation defense protects a broader class of angry, jealous, predominantly male defendants than the traditional doctrine of the nineteenth century did. Heat-of-passion claims have become the new "abuse excuse" for men. Second, battered woman syndrome evidence, which is now commonly admitted when abused women stand trial for murder, resonates uncomfortably with insanity claims. Reliance on such evidence ignores the fact that "rational moral actor" theories were also raised successfully in the past to defend domestic violence victims who killed their partners. Based on these insights, I argue that the most desirable aspects of the Australian reforms emphasize moral judgment about the defendant's reasons for killing and disfavor concessions to irrationality. Inspired by Australian efforts, legislatures in the U.S. should implement comprehensive reform of homicide law and sentencing. Yet, even if American states retain rigid sentencing structures, this Article advocates the repeal of the extreme mental or emotional disturbance defense and a reconceptualization of the provocation doctrine, guided by substantive equality principles, to require that the defendant's valuation was justified Provocation mitigation should be curtailed by categorical exclusions for killings arising from beliefs' and passions, including lethal rage at infidelity or the termination of an intimate relationship, that do not comport with evolving social norms. Furthermore, although many battered women charged with murdering a violent spouse can successfully claim provocation under the excuse-based modern doctrine, reformist legislatures ought to provide a new intermediate outcome that fits better with the circumstances of such women's cases.<br/ >Times Cited: 6Cited References: ALLEN JA, 1990, SEX SECRETS CRIMES I, P4 BARTLETT K, 1994, DUKE J GENDER LAW PO, V1, P1 BARTLETT KT, 1994, DUKE J GENDER L POLY, V1, P4 BLACKSTONE IW, 1765, COMMENTARIES BROWNE A, 1987, BATTERED WOMEN KILL, P165 BURKE AS, 2002, NC L REV, V81, P211 BYRNE PJ, 1993, CRIMINAL LAW COLONIA, P39 COUGHLIN AM, 1994, CALIF LAW REV, V82, P1, DOI 10.2307/3480849 CROCKER PL, 1985, HARV WOMENS LJ, V8, P139 CROCKER PL, 1985, HARVARD WOMENS LAW J, V8, P121 DAVIES S, 1995, SEX POWER JUSTICE HI Dershowitz Alan M., 1994, ABUSE EXCUSE OTHER C DERSHOWITZ AM, 2000, BUFF CRIM L REV, V3, P775 DERSHOWITZ AM, 2000, BUFF CRIM L REV, V3, P779 Dressler J, 2002, MINN LAW REV, V86, P959 DRESSLER J, 2002, MINN LAW REV, V86, P963 EASTEAL P, 2001, LESS EQUAL WOMEN AUS, P33 EASTEAL PW, 1993, KILLING BELOVED HOMI, P141 FORELL C, 2004, GEORGE WASH LAW REV, V72, P609 Forell C, 2004, GEORGE WASH LAW REV, V72, P597 FORELL CA, 2000, LAW HER OWN REASONAB, P157 FRIEDMAN LM, 1993, CRIME PUNISHMENT AM, P221 HORDER J, 1992, PROVOCATION RESPONSI, P2 IRELAND RM, 1992, J WOMENS HIST, V3, P102 IRELAND RM, 1992, J WOMENS HIST, V3, P95 Kahan Dan M., 1996, COLUMBIA LAW REV, V96, P278 Kahan DM, 1996, COLUMBIA LAW REV, V96, P269, DOI 10.2307/1123166 KAHAN DM, 1996, COLUMBIA LAW REV, V96, P273 LEE C, 2003, MURDER REASONABLE MA, P22 MAHONEY MR, 1991, MICH LAW REV, V90, P1, DOI 10.2307/1289533 MAHONEY MR, 1991, MICH LAW REV, V90, P28 MORGAN J, 2002, WHO KILLS WHOM WHY L, P7 NORTON MB, 1996, FOUNDING MOTHERS FAT, P78 Nourse V, 1998, STANFORD LAW REV, V50, P1435, DOI 10.2307/1229290 Pettegrew John, 2007, BRUTES SUITS MALE SE PLECK E, 1987, DOMESTIC TYRANNY MAK, P4 RAMSEY CB, 2002, AM CRIM L REV, V39, P1365 RAMSEY CB, 2006, U COLO L REV, V77, P101 Ramsey CB, 2002, AM CRIM LAW REV, V39, P1309 RAPAPORT E, 1996, SMU L REV, V49, P1521 RAPAPORT E, 1996, SMU L REV, V49, P1507 RAPAPORT E, 1996, SMU L REV, V49, P1528 SCHNEIDER EM, 2000, BATTERED WOMEN FEMIN, P113 SCUTT JA, 2004, JURY WHOSE PEERS CUL, P100 STARK E, 1995, ALB L REV, V58, P993 Stark Evan, 1995, ALB L REV, P973 STEWART F, 2[cut] | en |
| dc.identifier.source | Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology | en |
| dc.date.entered | 2014-07-21 | en |
| dc.description.physicaldescription | Pages 33-108 | en |
| Appears in Collections: | Journal Articles | |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.