Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Provocation/dimished capacity - Coggle Diagram
Provocation/dimished capacity
reason for provocation and diminished capacity
criminal law recognizes that killings can be provoked in “heat of passion” and these types of killings are less blameworthy than unprovoked killing
what does provocation do?
turns a murder charge into voluntary manslaugther
different approaches by jurisdictions on provocation
MPC approach
Under MPC (when provocation can lead murder to be manslaughter): provocation has been broadened, the reasonableness of the killing as a response to the provocation is viewed from the POV of a reasonable person in the actor’s position | for their to be murder mitigation, the defendant has to prove the acted under extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there was reasonable explanation for the excuse
Only allows mitigation when the actor is responding immediately to the provocation
Only allowed if force is used against the person who is responsible for the immediate provocation, example: would not be allowed in Gounagias because offender killed someone other than the person would abused him
jurisdiction approaches to determine what is sufficient for provocation
Words alone are enough
Words alone are enough, if they report an act that is itself legally recognized as adequate provocation (example: man was told by another man, his family member had been hurt)
Words alone are never sufficient
Diminished capacity: a mitigation doctrine sometimes available, commonly in non-MPC jurisdictions, that allows an impaired mental condition short of insanity- such as that caused by intoxication, trauma, or disease- to provide a mitigation of liability | example: Harvey Milk case from the small book
what is needed to mitigate a murder charge
(1) The killing must have been committed “under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance” a defendant will not be eligible for the mitigation if he did not personally suffer such a disturbance or it it did not drive or dictate his act, even if the circumstances would have created such a disturbance in most other people and would have driven them to violence
(2) There must be a “reasonable explanation or excuse” for the disturbance. No mitigation is available if the disturbance has no reasonable basis or is peculiar to the actor
How provocation different in CL and MPV
Under the MPC, it is different from the CL and it does not explicitly require or exclude particular situations, there are no conditions that are inadequate or exclude particular situations. It also drops the CL rule barring mitigation if time has passed, the MPC said the passing of time does not decrease emotional disturbance and it might actually increase it