I don’t see how self-defense doesn’t do the same thing.

If you read the first of the Law Commission reports you will find that there are a number of defences available to battered partners, and that since that report things have been improved for them by the increase in judge’s sentencing discretion in cases of murder.

You will also find that s169 provocation was not working for battered women as a defence, and was not used successfully by them.

Battered spouses have defences (whether they have enough is a different issue for a different posts) as they do not use s169 provocation they lose nothing by its repeal.

Um no, I’ve shown that battered women killing their abusive partners to escape the violence then using the s169 provocation defence is a myth. The first report I linked, which was entirely on the actions of battered partners, has some examples of them killing to escape and talks about the defences they can/do use.

After the Bain trial I am still lamenting the poor quality of our juries, and this only encourages defence lawyers to go down the provocation track, since they know they will likely make their story resonate with at least a couple of morons on the jury.

God forbid anyone on the W……n jury is falling for the story of that psychopath.

The Criminal Justice system is incredibly brutal and demands long sentences

This is quite squarely an article of faith for some folk, just as the inverse (the justice system in NZ is wimpy and fails to adequately punish any wrongdoers ever) is an article of faith for other folk. To be a meaningful statement it needs to be further contextualised and qualified than it is here.

It’s been a lot of years since I studied criminology, but I seem to recall NZ’s sentencing norms being not at all outrageous by comparison with like societies. Still, that was before the punishment auction really got going.

L

Agreed Anita and my original post confirms this. I said that the sentence was “almost invariably life” if convicted.

The Sentencing Act states “[a]n offender who is convicted of murder must be sentenced to imprisonment for life unless, given the circumstances of the offence and the offender, a sentence of imprisonment for life would be manifestly unjust”.

This is a pretty heavy test. I am suggesting the sentence for murder should be a maximum of life imprisonment with the sentencing Judge having more discretion about what the sentence should be.

As my post says there is no longer a mandatory life sentence for murder (try the first two paragraphs of the Foreword of the second Law Commission report).

I hear what you say but the debate is incomplete without considering the repercussions of a conviction for murder. The Criminal Justice system is incredibly brutal and demands long sentences, almost invariably life if someone is convicted of murder. This has been a result of our very conservative and dare I say reactionary approach to criminal justice over many centuries.

Provocation does not avoid a heavy sentence, it may convert a life sentence to one of 10 years in jail. Requiring all persons who cause the death of another to serve a life sentence irrespective of the circumstances may, putting aside the effects on the defendant and his family, be “just” and reflect “equality” but you are insisting on the barbaric treatment of defendants to be doled out equally. You seem to be objecting to compassion being offered to someone (usually male) who finds themselves in a situation where they react terribly.

What about instead of requiring life imprisonment in murder cases the sentence is to be (usually) a term of imprisonment up to life imprisonment depending on the circumstances?

Then there will be no need for defences such as provocation and all the curcumstances can be taken into account. Many trials will be avoided.

The way that I see it an automatic (life) sentence means that defendants will try anything and juries may, in showing some compassion, be giving a message that certain inappropriate views create a legal defence.