ACT Opposes Provocation Repeal Bill
Because the heinous Clayton Weatherston tried use the "provocation" defence in his trial for murdering Sophie Elliott, the National Government was "provoked" into trying to repeal the "provocation" defence.
So nobody who now commits a crime of passion, will have any right to put any part of the responsibility on the victim, no matter how vicious, extreme, or how prolonged the provocation.
That is completely unjust.
The jury must have the right to determine if the victim played some role in his or her own victimhood.
So the criminally accused will no longer be able to get a reduced sentence for vicious or pro-longed provocation, but the National Government may allow itself to be "provoked" into abolishing a centuries old defence, as a knee-jerk reaction to one terrible case.
Thank God for sane and responsible lawyer/politicians such as ACT's David Garrett.
From the ACT Party website;
ACT New Zealand Justice Spokesman David Garrett today reiterated ACT's opposition to the Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill until such time as alternative defences – such as diminished responsibility – are put into law.
"This would ensure that mitigating circumstances are taken into account when individuals are on trial, as advocated by the New Zealand Law Society and senior prosecutors," Mr Garrett said.
"If successful, the partial defence of provocation reduces 'charged with murder' to 'guilty of manslaughter'. This defence is open to both men and women and – contrary to recent claims – victim's sexual orientation is irrelevant. It is not – and never has been – a 'gay panic' defence.
"This defence was recently highlighted when Clayton Weatherston attempted to use provocation as a defence, but failed. This failure shows that the defence is working, and still has a place in the 21st century.
"Had provocation as a defence been repealed, however, Weatherston could have raised it at sentencing - causing exactly the same distress to Sophie Elliot's family as he did in the trial itself. Arguably it would have been worse, as the Elliot family would have had to undergo two separate ordeals at Weatherston's hands.
"Arguments for a repeal of the defence are weak, at best. It should be a jury of one's peers – not a judge – that decides whether the defence is justified," Mr Garrett said.
Well said, David.
So nobody who now commits a crime of passion, will have any right to put any part of the responsibility on the victim, no matter how vicious, extreme, or how prolonged the provocation.
That is completely unjust.
The jury must have the right to determine if the victim played some role in his or her own victimhood.
So the criminally accused will no longer be able to get a reduced sentence for vicious or pro-longed provocation, but the National Government may allow itself to be "provoked" into abolishing a centuries old defence, as a knee-jerk reaction to one terrible case.
Thank God for sane and responsible lawyer/politicians such as ACT's David Garrett.
From the ACT Party website;
ACT New Zealand Justice Spokesman David Garrett today reiterated ACT's opposition to the Crimes (Provocation Repeal) Amendment Bill until such time as alternative defences – such as diminished responsibility – are put into law.
"This would ensure that mitigating circumstances are taken into account when individuals are on trial, as advocated by the New Zealand Law Society and senior prosecutors," Mr Garrett said.
"If successful, the partial defence of provocation reduces 'charged with murder' to 'guilty of manslaughter'. This defence is open to both men and women and – contrary to recent claims – victim's sexual orientation is irrelevant. It is not – and never has been – a 'gay panic' defence.
"This defence was recently highlighted when Clayton Weatherston attempted to use provocation as a defence, but failed. This failure shows that the defence is working, and still has a place in the 21st century.
"Had provocation as a defence been repealed, however, Weatherston could have raised it at sentencing - causing exactly the same distress to Sophie Elliot's family as he did in the trial itself. Arguably it would have been worse, as the Elliot family would have had to undergo two separate ordeals at Weatherston's hands.
"Arguments for a repeal of the defence are weak, at best. It should be a jury of one's peers – not a judge – that decides whether the defence is justified," Mr Garrett said.
Well said, David.
posted by Trevor Loudon at
11/25/2009 08:36:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home