Civilised people have dropped this but not Hazairin Iskandar and Mohd Shah Saemin.

A 'pre-planned, premeditated killing' in Leichhardt has been discussed since February but it seems today the Homosexual Panic Defence has been called to justify murder—

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/you-cant-e...604-1zrwy.html

http://media.smh.com.au/police-arres...r-1172180.html

(I feel some strange link to all this ugliness because my deputy municipal mayor bears the same surname as the murderer. He was taken to court ten years ago for political branch stacking in my local community centre by signing up about 20 members of his own family)

^ This man slashed his wife throat SIX times until she was dead, completely dead.

His lawyers used the 'Provocation Defence' which says that men have greater physical power and have greater jealousy if they are provoked and therefore their crimes can be excused.

The states of Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia have changed this barbaric law but the NSW fogies MAY change after they have excused this current murderer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark_

^ This man slashed his wife throat SIX times until she was dead, completely dead.

His lawyers used the 'Provocation Defence' which says that men have greater physical power and have greater jealousy if they are provoked and therefore their crimes can be excused.

The states of Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia have changed this barbaric law but the NSW fogies MAY change after they have excused this current murderer.

The provocation defense originates from section 23 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

Within that section, there is no mention of 'men whom have greater physical power and have greater jealousy if they are provoked' and no mention of this equating to their alleged crimes being dismissed. (That I can see, you can correct me if I'm wrong)

Under the provocation defense, and section 23, the prosecution which has the burden of proof must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that in the same given situation, a 'reasonable individual' would have loss control to the extent that they would be willed to cause grievous harm or death. (Section (2)b of Sect 23 of the Crimes Act)

The provocation must, therefore, be seen by the court as being severe enough to warrant the absence of judgment that would result in causing grievous harm or death. This is easier to disprove than prove in my opinion, and this is reflected in court decisions in the past.

There is no specific conduct that warrants an 'automatic' acceptance of the provocation defense. The court will look at many factors. It has been commented in the past by legal professionals and commentaries that this particular defense may appear too ready to excuse violent behaviour. However, with the changing values of society and the growing intolerance to violent behaviour, the courts are more reluctant to accept this defense and are more thorough in their investigation of the given facts. This is exemplified by the 'reasonable person' test and an examination of the extent of provocation that would reasonably lead to actual loss of self-control.


Just a note. I'm not condoning this individual's actions or giving my opinion in this specific case, I'm simply adding more information and clarification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark_

Civilised people have dropped this but not Hazairin Iskandar and Mohd Shah Saemin.

A 'pre-planned, premeditated killing' in Leichhardt has been discussed since February but it seems today the Homosexual Panic Defence has been called to justify murder—

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/you-cant-e...604-1zrwy.html

http://media.smh.com.au/police-arres...r-1172180.html

(I feel some strange link to all this ugliness because my deputy municipal mayor bears the same surname as the murderer. He was taken to court ten years ago for political branch stacking in my local community centre by signing up about 20 members of his own family)

I find it strange that they, who acted in premeditation, would even attempt to play off this kind of defense. The first offense I would imagine, would be an assault with a deadly weapon (The car). This alone is punishable by law and I highly doubt that they could prove provocation. Provocation must lead to a 'loss of control'. Loss of control does not typically allow for 'deliberation' or 'intent to commit an act' with forethought. Premeditated murder is planned, and an individual who has 'lost all self-control' is not normally in a position in which they are capable of planning an act such as this to the degree which has been suggested (arming themselves, giving chase, presumably after the day in which the derogatory comment was made, though this last assumption is just that, as it has not been made clear which preceded which.)

The belief that the crime was premeditated does not appear to be in question, as the prosecutor states, and the defending counsel concedes that the defendant believed that he was performing an honourable kill (Killing to protect the honour of his family name).

I would be interested to know, that even if they can reach the conclusion that the defendant was not sound of mind on that day, how that corresponds to his son and his own state. That they would both be incapacitated/both lost control around the comments exchanged does not appear to me very likely.

To be honest, I cannot make any conclusive remarks about this case. The information we have been given, though quoted, is a news article, and they are not always the most trusted sources of factual information. Nonetheless, their defense seems sketchy at best given the information we have been provided.

We just need a female to claim heterosexual defence against a guy

and you watch em get rid the law.

@Precedence

What could possibly be a situation that fits the reasonable individual loss of control/ absense of judgement?

Do you know of any recent examples where the defense was successful?


Every situation I can think of would almost be self defence or defending someone else.

For example if you discovered someone had moments before killed your loved one, and you attacked them in rage - is that the kind of situation?

That article has nothing to do with the Gay Panic Defence. The Gay Panic Defence is used by straight men to claim that they are not responsible for their action against a gay man because they "panicked" after being hit on by that man. In that article the man claimed he killed another man (his wife's lover) because the other guy accused him of being a "poofter" who was unable to look after his wife.

As for what it has to do with members of Mark_'s local council, I'm sure not even he understands what connection he's trying to make, but then again Mark_'s whinging about his local council never seems to be related to the story he tries to relate it to. Perhaps his fellow 2GB listeners get it?

Are you trying to be bitchy? Or catty? The murderer is my alderman's nephew.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ammonite

@Precedence

What could possibly be a situation that fits the reasonable individual loss of control/ absense of judgement?

Do you know of any recent examples where the defense was successful?


Every situation I can think of would almost be self defence or defending someone else.

For example if you discovered someone had moments before killed your loved one, and you attacked them in rage - is that the kind of situation?

I'm still a Law student! But I'll do my best to answer your questions without error.

As stated prior, the provocation does not excuse a murder, but has the effect of reducing a murder charge to manslaughter. In this way, it acts as a ‘partial defense to murder’ like Infanticide.

It differs from self defense. Self defense is a complete defense to murder and will result in an acquittal. Self-defense was established if the accused believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defense to act as they did. (Zecevic v DPP (1987) 162 CLR 645 at 661)

The New South Wales Law Reform Commission (NSWLRC), In its 1997 Report stated the following…

‘There are circumstances in which a person's power to reason and control his or her actions accordingly is impaired by a loss of self-control to such an extent as markedly to reduce that person's culpability for killing. Through the defence of provocation, the law offers a degree of compassion to those whose will to act rationally is overcome by a loss of self-control in circumstances where the community generally can understand or sympathise with their reaction … It is appropriate that loss of self-control be expressly recognised by way of a defence of provocation because it is a condition which significantly impairs the accused's mental state and reduces his or her blameworthiness …

Factors which significantly affect that mental state should be recognized as reducing the accused's responsibility for his or her actions.’

It’s hard to really say which situations give rise to a successful plead for provocation. It is not a defense that is easily provable in court and judges, as I’ve noted previously, are pretty reluctant to accept it anyway. An example recognized by courts is the case of battered women who, on the verge of mental collapse, attack their husbands back resulting in death.

Other examples include (R v Panozzo, 1990) the offender shot his estranged wife after he found a letter written by her to a new lover; and in the other case (R v Khan, 1996), the offender witnessed a sexual act between his wife and a third person.

I would think that the example you provided works. There is grounds for provocation there. Whether or not it would be successful I can't say for sure, but I imagine they could make a strong case for it.

If you want to read more about these defenses, you should read Provocation and Self-defense in Intimate Partner and Homophobic Homicides by Lenny Roth. You can find it via the NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service.

Hope that helps your understanding.

Here's another judicial dilemma~



'Texan father kills man trying to sexually abuse daughter.
A central Texas father who told investigators he fatally beat a man he caught molesting his 4-year-old daughter at a horse barn on Saturday has not been charged, authorities said Tuesday"

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,5906401.story

The murderer has been sent to gaol
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/honour-kil...627-212w5.html