Does the Use of the Provocation Defence Provide Justice for Victims, Offenders and Society?
Question 4 - Assess the use of the defence of provocation in achieving justice for victims, offenders and society. (10 marks)
Victim – Manpreet Kaur (husband Chamanjot Singh). Murdered by her husband with her throat but eight times. Her husband claimed that she told him she loved another man and that she would have him deported back to India. He said that this was enough provocation for him to lose self control and that he has no knowledge of the events that followed him picking up a box cutter. The difficulty in assessing his guilt or innocence in this case was that there was no witnesses to the crime or the events preceding the crime and therefore it becomes an issue of whether the jury accepts the account of a single person (as the victim can no longer defend themselves). A successful provocation defence means that the offender’s culpability is significantly reduced as the charge is reduced from murder to manslaughter. In the case of Chamanjot Singh he received a sentence of 6 years imprisonment. The minimum sentence for someone convicted of murder is 25 years. As was mentioned on the Insight program Provoked aired on SBS television by the victim’s sister Chamanjot would be free to leave gaol in 3 years (having already served 3) and go back to his family and friends, she would never see her sister again. It is therefore questionable as to whether Chamanjot’s successful use of the provocation defence has provided justice for Manpreet and her extended family.
Offenders – The use of the provocation defence enables offenders (who feel that they were provoked to the point that an ordinary person would have lost control) to have their level of culpability reduced from murder to manslaughter. Without this partial defence battered women would have no alternative but to argue their innocence on the basis of self defence. Failure to win a case on the grounds of self defence would mean that the victim would receive the minimum sentence for murder ie. 25 years. The
Victim – Manpreet Kaur (husband Chamanjot Singh). Murdered by her husband with her throat but eight times. Her husband claimed that she told him she loved another man and that she would have him deported back to India. He said that this was enough provocation for him to lose self control and that he has no knowledge of the events that followed him picking up a box cutter. The difficulty in assessing his guilt or innocence in this case was that there was no witnesses to the crime or the events preceding the crime and therefore it becomes an issue of whether the jury accepts the account of a single person (as the victim can no longer defend themselves). A successful provocation defence means that the offender’s culpability is significantly reduced as the charge is reduced from murder to manslaughter. In the case of Chamanjot Singh he received a sentence of 6 years imprisonment. The minimum sentence for someone convicted of murder is 25 years. As was mentioned on the Insight program Provoked aired on SBS television by the victim’s sister Chamanjot would be free to leave gaol in 3 years (having already served 3) and go back to his family and friends, she would never see her sister again. It is therefore questionable as to whether Chamanjot’s successful use of the provocation defence has provided justice for Manpreet and her extended family.
Offenders – The use of the provocation defence enables offenders (who feel that they were provoked to the point that an ordinary person would have lost control) to have their level of culpability reduced from murder to manslaughter. Without this partial defence battered women would have no alternative but to argue their innocence on the basis of self defence. Failure to win a case on the grounds of self defence would mean that the victim would receive the minimum sentence for murder ie. 25 years. The