Comments

1. Posted by: Chris on 7/30/2008 3:10 PM
   
   Here's an interesting fact - five years ago, Harriet Harman tried and failed to push through this exact same law:
   
   Killers to lose 'I was provoked' defence By Rachel Sylvester
   
   (Daily Telegraph, Filed: 03/03/2003)
   
   The Government is considering removing the centuries-old defence of provocation in murder cases.
   
   Harriet Harman, the Solicitor General, says in an interview with The Daily Telegraph, that the law, "from a previous age", should be changed. "It blames the victim," she says. "Men say, 'The woman wound me up; she was planning to leave me and I was upset and therefore I am not guilty of murder.' Even if a woman has done all of those things it does not justify violence, let alone violence to the point of death." There are about two domestic homicides every week, 95 per cent of them by men, and Miss Harman believes that the killers are getting off too lightly. Men who say they were provoked into killing their wives are usually convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. The Government is considering changing the 1957 Homicide Act to make it impossible to use provocation as a defence. Guidance is be given to prosecutors that domestic homicides should carry a charge of murder, not manslaughter.
   
   The proposed change would affect other situations as well. For example, if a young man was being racially taunted and lashed out, killing the abuser, he would no longer be able to mount a defence based on provocation. Miss Harman is considering creating a new form of defence that would allow women who kill their husbands after years of physical abuse to be treated more leniently. Domestic violence victims would also be given the right to anonymity
   
   Acknowledgement : article from The Daily Telegraph of 3 Mar 2003.
   
   I recently discovered the above article on the UKMM website: http://www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/shame/harman.htm
2. Posted by: katy on 7/30/2008 4:04 PM
   
   Did you miss the part where it said that men (who perpetrate a huge majority of domestic murders)mainly use the provocation as a defense for killing their wives because of things like nagging. And at the same time, women who suffer physical abuse for years get no self-defense? If you don't like a law that would change that, then yeah, don't be in a relationship. Or at least try not to beat your wife, and then she won't have a reason to retaliate.
3. Posted by: Anonymous on 8/1/2008 1:29 PM
   
   If they are going to do this, they need to extend it to all genders. Under these laws I could have killed half my graduating highschool class and gotten away with it.
4. Posted by: ArgusEyes on 8/1/2008 2:52 PM
   
   Sure, and in response to Katy.
   
   I don't expect everyone to follow my every comment but I've already stated that I think that removing the provocation defence was appropriate, WHATEVER the reason, killing someone with intent is murder. A court of law can decide how much "validity" there was to it to bring the case down (we all agree that a spur of the moment thing doesn't warrant as much jail time as a premeditated cold murder, no?). So they remove it for men and add it as a defence for women? And this is being authored/pushed by a feminist?
   
   That, my friends, is what feminists in power brings you. Bringing men down and building women up. Equality my big fat ass!
   
5. Posted by: katy on 8/1/2008 10:46 PM
   
   I just don't see how giving people a lighter sentence when they killed their partner because of physical abuse when they have no way out means that your country must want men to boycott relationships. It only makes being in a relationship more dangerous for men who want to either beat their partners or kill them, and while I think that too many men want to beat their partners, I don't think it's a majority of them.
   
   To say that removing the defense of provocation for men (WHO USE IT TO KILL PARTNERS BECAUSE THEY NAG) but allowing it for women (WHO USE IT TO KILL ABUSIVE PARTNERS) is sexist, you have to see these two situations as the same. And they fundamentally are not. I have no problem telling someone that they need to figure out how to deal with their emotions enough to be able to control themselves when confronted by a nagging partner, but I can't place as much blame on a victim of domestic violence who has no way out without being killed. The fact that it was in the heat of the moment does not make the first situation a more legitimate or equaly legitimate excuse. This has nothing to do with raising women up (or putting men down). It has to do with the amount of control the person who killed their partner can be expected to have over the situation. The only legitimate claim you could have to sexism would be if the law did not allow for the fact that there are some less frequent cases of domestic abuse being directed toward men. I absolutely agree that that should not be forgotten.
   
6. Posted by: Pankaj on 8/4/2008 2:23 AM
   
   Katy,
   
   "It only makes being in a relationship more dangerous for men who want to either beat their partners or kill them, and while I think that too many men want to beat their partners, I don't think it's a majority of them."
   
   What is the burden of proof for existence of abuse/beatings by the male partner that will be placed on the killer?
   
   And why is it that the same defense is not available to men? Maybe because women never commit domestic violence.. right? By the way, nagging is considered domestic violence when done against a woman, so why not against a man?
   
   My advice to all British men is - Either rise in revolt and overthrow the govt OR leave the country. You are not safe there and your taxes/labor is aiding the tyranny of other fellow men and not to mention children.
7. Posted by: Pankaj on 8/4/2008 2:30 AM
   
   The funny and simplistic thing is that the feminist mind forgets that the worse the odds get - the more drastic the male response will be. So now, if a man who would have chosen to try and escape his wife's harassment, knowing that she will kill him with impunity - will be much more justified in attempting a pre-emptive strike. It is much preferable to live in prison knowing that your aggressor is dead than to die knowing that your aggressor will live on.
   
   For you feminists - keep pushing, I hope you succeed in your real intentions (that's different from your claimed intentions) - what you have not thought about is what will happen when those real intentions are finally achieved. So keep on keeping on.
8. Posted by: Kiroku on 3/16/2009 1:19 AM
   
   Katy,
   
   You seem to have minimal intelligence for this arguement. You are too wishy-washy on your responces, and clearly give out you have no clue about equality.
   
   Pankaj,
   
   I agree, if a men yells at his wife, and THAT'S DV, then why the hell can't it work the other way? It's just like throwing a punch, if a woman does it to either gender it's fine, man punching man is fine, but somehow the link is broken when a man hits a women. These are double-standards that need to be known as common-knowledge. Ladies out there that may be reading this, let me tell you something. If you're fine with these double-standards, you're advocating sexism. It doesn't matter what you say, it won't be equality until balance is made (I don't mean to say you should let a man beat/abuse a women, but moreover a man should not be severly convicted for the soul reason the person he hit was a woman. Men should know it's improper to hit a lady, but ladies don't get right to hit them just because it's not stressed upon them. They should be in trouble for what they inflicted and caused, not who they did it to).