"I JUST SNAPPED"- LEGAL TERAIN ARROUND PROVOCATION IN CRIMINAL LAW.

I have to point out that for a very long time, for some reason, i always figured provocation was a ground for justification in criminal law. Here i am, here, admitting that i was so wrong for so many years that it is embarrassing. Or maby this might be one of those mandela effects wherein Provocation was a ground of justification and then just became something different over time. Thats the mandela effect right?. Okay thats besides the point. My curiosity of the topic stems from various conversations i have had this week. In one of those conversations, i wondered as to what would happen if X gets provoked by Y, in return Y gets shot in the Face. And boom we are here today looking into the terrain of Provocation in criminal law.

Out the gates, it has to be pointed out that you are going to jail if you murder someone because they called you the B word or the B word followed by the F word, followed by S and capped of by the P word and for good measures accompanied by a variety of slur words- unless that caused you emotional stress to such a a degree you involuntarily acted outside your will state, then maby an acquittal can happen. Maby

Me personally, in a situation wherein you are hurled with curse words and slurs constantly, non stop, it gets to a points whereby instinctually you have to let go and protect your dignity. The law does have way of forgetting that, it does not end with you as an individual. You as an individual when you are out there you are representing billions of generation of your bloodline. When those slurs and undignified words are thrown your way, they are not just thrown at you, but are directed to your family as well. And i think that is worth protecting and therefore, a defense to your family and ancestory should be regarded as grounds for justification. Thats a topic for another time, lets gets to the technicality.

In this we will be looking at provocation, its definition in law, its application and limitation and its status within the criminal law defence terrain.

INTRODUCTION

Within a legal context, Provocation refers to an instance where the victim directs a wrongful act towards the accused, such as deep insults, spitting on the face or performing any other act for the purposes of eliciting a response, to the point that the accused loses foresight and self control and lets instinct guide them towards the combos to be put on the victim.

You can correct me if wrong, with reading the above definition you can say that Provocation is a fitting grounds for justification. If you like me thought it was, i am here to tell you that it is not. Provocation in the eyes of the eyes of the law is merely viewed as a mitigating factor at best for sentencing and at worst a 25 years on the chin, because a "reasonable person" would not have shot y in the face. In my opinion, reasonable ends when Y swore at by my surname. As soon as that happens, it has to be understood that the perpetrator and the victim exist in a different reality wherein clearly there is a mutual consent between the provocateur and provocatrix that what happens going forward will be founded on the rules of nature. The law has to take a seat back in such circumstances, because no good can come from restricting nature to that extent.

The Application of Provocation: "I snapped and saw black"

"Sir i snapped and saw black, next thing i know, i wake up and there is a body on the concrete"- This call comes an hour later from the client after your client has put serious hands on a dude who insulted your clients's family in deep degrees.

Now the value of a defence of provocation in the current criminal law climate is zero to nothing. Unless is provocation raised within the ambit of sane automatism- which details a defence wherein your unlawful act was as a result of an involuntary action in which you could not subject your bodily movements to your will. Now this that was not the case at the time the offence was committed then You better on basing your defence towards an attack of the law, being technical, than using provocation to beat Assault GBH charge. I do not agree with the unacknowledgement of the Provocation as a ground for justification because, from my experience of the world, someone spits in your face or calls you all sorts of slurs, it perfect grounds to put paws on a man. Now ofcourse where i do agree with the law is that the action must be proportionate to the words that was directed to you. So i can safely put forward that within a context of murder, Provocation can never be a defence within the context of murder unless it escalated to a physical realm wherein you had to protect your physical intergrity or the intergrity of your property, then the response can be more sever.

In the event that your only trump card in pursuing justice for your client is using provocation as defence, then this is what courts have looked at in determining whether its a mitigating factor in sentencing not whether you beating the charge or not.

It is understood that for provocation to have a role in your defence theses are the factors considered:

1. Trigger: The words hurled at you must be of such a degree that it infringed on your dignity to an extent that it caused you to lose control and left the wheel to Jesus and just acted. in the event that you lost control to this extent, then one does have a chance to raise sane automatism as a defence, and that can be the solution to ensuring prison bars are not lock behind you.

2. Immediate: Between the Provocation and action, there is split second in which those two events must be seperated. Essentially the trigger must be immediately followed by the action. A delay in response in a situation like that will spell out you taking the full force of the gavel because a delay, in terms of the law, means you planned to get your revenge, and premediation in doing some chaotic shit because someone called you a pig is unlawful.

3. Severity: The insults must go hard, like hard. Not like being roasted but by being seriously provoked through unkind, undignified words being hurled at you. Now just as a side note, in my perspective, anyone call you Kafir has consented to hands beings placed on them and i dont think it would be fair for one life to pause because one protected their history against a malicious attack.

Now with those factors being present, it can result in a lesser sentence than what you would have gotten had your response been premediated. If you really blacked due to sever emotional stress, then its possible that the charge can be beat completly. With a savy attorney/advocate and an expert witness, justice can prevaile.

MY TAKE:

I personally feel, provocation should be regarded as a ground of justification- outside the umbrella of sane automatism. The courts has this Reasonable person standard wherein it judges the action of a man based on what a fictitious reasonable person would have done in the situation. On the eye test alone, The Reasonable Person Test is garbage and it should be scrapped in determining the guilt of a person. Its a bad measure of objectivity because reasonableness differs across cultures. In one culture, its perfectly reasonable to whoop feet when someone provokes you to wax that ass and in other cultures diplomacy reigns. Therefore i put it to the readers that, actually, its an insult to desginate what reasonable is because in doing that you essentially saying that those whose standard of reasonableness is different to that of the courts is unreasonable and has no sense. That cannot be supported.

-Writing on the Reasonable Person on the way-

CONCLUSION:

If there was a scuffle and you participate in that scuffle then some shit happens, your best bet is self defence. It was either my life or his in that situation, and everyone is entitled to guard the intergrity of their existence. Provocation has to be the last, because if its the first, you catching that rep. I dont think its reasonable that its that way, but you work with what you have. Therefore when you find yourself in a provocative situation wherein you are the subject, then my advise is take a deep breath, say thank you and step away. But if it means there wasnt time to take a deep breath, then that means you probably just let loose in the moment and realised later what you have done. In that situation, you still fucked, but atleast your sentence can be more lenient, possibly even no prison time served.

DISCLAIMER: THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE LEGAL ADVISE OR LEGAL AUTHORITY TO THE SUBJECT MATTER. THE PRESENTATION IS BASED ON AN IDEA AND EXPERIENCE. ITS SUBJECTIVE AND THEREFORE ITS PROBATIVE VALUE WOULD NOT HOLD MUCH IN COURT, IF INTEREST, I ADVISE YOU CONDUCT YOUR OWN RESEARCH FURTHER.