Jealous Men and Provocative Women

Abstract

Over the past two decades, the partial defence of provocation has been referred to as the ‘heat of passion’ or ‘jealous man’s’ defence in reference to its use — or more aptly its abuse — by men who kill a female intimate partner in the context of separation, estrangement or infidelity (Burton, 2001, 2003; Coker, 1992; Dressier, 2002; Fitz-Gibbon, 2012; Fontaine, 2009; Forell, 2005; Gorman, 1999; Lee, 2003; Nourse, 1997). These contexts of lethal violence have arguably given rise to the most controversial verdicts of provocation manslaughter, including that obtained in the James Ramage¹, Chamanjot Singh² and Leslie Humes³ cases. Consequently, it is somewhat unsurprising, that the successful use of provocation in male-perpetrated intimate homicides has also been central to calls for the abolition, or at minimum, the restriction, of this controversial defence. As such, in examining the problem of provocation, and debate surrounding the need for its reform, this context of lethal violence represents a critical point of analysis.