Graduate studies at Western
Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 27 (1):49-73 (2007)
|Abstract||Most recent discussion of the provocation defence has focused on the objective test, and little attention has been paid to the subjective test. However, the subjective test provides a substantial constraint: the killing must result from a provocation that undermines the defendant's self-control. The idea of loss of self-control has been developed in both the philosophical and psychological literatures. Understanding the subjective test in the light of the conception developed there makes for a far more coherent interpretation of the provocation defence. It also makes clear just how radical various proposals for reform of the defence would be|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Lisa Guenther (2011). Shame and the Temporality of Social Life. Continental Philosophy Review 44 (1):23-39.
Stephen Turner (1988). Provocation on Reproducing Perspectives: Part. Social Epistemology 2 (2):185 – 187.
Søren Holm (2006). Who Should Control the Use of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Lines: A Defence of the Donors' Ability to Control. [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 3 (1-2):55-68.
Ken Hanly (1991). The Ethics of Rent Control. Journal of Business Ethics 10 (3):189 - 200.
Helen Frowe (2010). A Practical Account of Self-Defence. Law and Philosophy 29 (3):245-272.
Steve Matthews (2004). Failed Agency and the Insanity Defence. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 27:413-424.
T. M. Wilkinson (2007). Contagious Disease and Self-Defence. Res Publica 13 (4):339-359.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads35 ( #39,306 of 739,575 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,575 )
How can I increase my downloads?