PhilDawson8270
Veteran
@Cunobelin
I hate to use a Wiki link as a source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provocation_in_English_law
As I stated earlier, provocation is simply a mitigatory defence to lower a murder charge. And, does NOT apply to any other defence.
So like you say, we don't know if he even stabbed, or killed her. But, if you believe provocation to be a legal issue in the song, then you must also believe that there was a killing in the story.
But that would simply lower murder to manslaughter.
However, Provocation doesn't really exist anymore. Since that was abolished and replaced with "loss of control". That is actually well defined in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/54
is not to be convicted of murder if—
(a)D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D's loss of self-control,
(b)the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and
(c)a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.
The bit in bold is I believe the critical part they will need to believe. Would a person of normal tolerance and self-restraint ALSO stab the woman who has deceived him?
From section 55
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/55
(6)In determining whether a loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger—
(a)D's fear of serious violence is to be disregarded to the extent that it was caused by a thing which D incited to be done or said for the purpose of providing an excuse to use violence;
(b)a sense of being seriously wronged by a thing done or said is not justifiable if D incited the thing to be done or said for the purpose of providing an excuse to use violence;
(c)the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded.
If this was infidelity, this act removes it as a trigger. So in other words, IF Delilah had committed infidelity. The law does NOT consider this to be a qualifying defence for "Loss of Control"
Finally, we'll finish with Section 56
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/56
(1)The common law defence of provocation is abolished and replaced by sections 54 and 55.
There is your final statement that provocation is abolished.
I look forward to your response to these, as I believe that all this conclusively proves that provocation is no longer a defence, and it's replacement loss of control, does NOT apply to infidelity.
Over to you @Cunobelin
I hate to use a Wiki link as a source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provocation_in_English_law
As I stated earlier, provocation is simply a mitigatory defence to lower a murder charge. And, does NOT apply to any other defence.
So like you say, we don't know if he even stabbed, or killed her. But, if you believe provocation to be a legal issue in the song, then you must also believe that there was a killing in the story.
But that would simply lower murder to manslaughter.
However, Provocation doesn't really exist anymore. Since that was abolished and replaced with "loss of control". That is actually well defined in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/54
is not to be convicted of murder if—
(a)D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D's loss of self-control,
(b)the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and
(c)a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.
The bit in bold is I believe the critical part they will need to believe. Would a person of normal tolerance and self-restraint ALSO stab the woman who has deceived him?
From section 55
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/55
(6)In determining whether a loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger—
(a)D's fear of serious violence is to be disregarded to the extent that it was caused by a thing which D incited to be done or said for the purpose of providing an excuse to use violence;
(b)a sense of being seriously wronged by a thing done or said is not justifiable if D incited the thing to be done or said for the purpose of providing an excuse to use violence;
(c)the fact that a thing done or said constituted sexual infidelity is to be disregarded.
If this was infidelity, this act removes it as a trigger. So in other words, IF Delilah had committed infidelity. The law does NOT consider this to be a qualifying defence for "Loss of Control"
Finally, we'll finish with Section 56
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/section/56
(1)The common law defence of provocation is abolished and replaced by sections 54 and 55.
There is your final statement that provocation is abolished.
I look forward to your response to these, as I believe that all this conclusively proves that provocation is no longer a defence, and it's replacement loss of control, does NOT apply to infidelity.
Over to you @Cunobelin
