Provocation Manslaughter as Partial Justification and Partial Excuse

52 William and Mary Law Review 1027 (2011)

U Denver Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12-28

84 Pages Posted: 16 Aug 2012

See all articles by Ian P. Farrell

Ian P. Farrell

The University of Denver Sturm College of Law

Mitchell N. Berman

University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School

Date Written: August 16, 2012

Abstract

The partial defense of provocation provides that a person who kills in the heat of passion brought on by legally adequate provocation is guilty of manslaughter rather than murder. The defense traces back to the twelfth century and exists today, in some form, in almost every U.S. state and other common law jurisdictions. But long history and wide application have not produced agreement on the rationale for the doctrine. To the contrary, the search for a coherent and satisfying rationale remains among the main occupations of criminal law theorists.

The dominant scholarly view holds that provocation is best explained and defended as a partial excuse on the grounds that the killer’s inflamed emotional state so compromised his ability to conform his conduct to the demands of reason and law as to render him substantially less blameworthy for his conduct. In contrast,a small minority of scholars have maintained, without significant argumentative support, that provocation is best understood as a partial justification on the ground that the provoked killing is less wrongful than is an unprovoked killing, ceteris paribus. Recently, other commentators have argued that provocation mitigation is neither partial excuse nor partial justification.

Against all of these familiar positions, we argue that partial excuse and partial justification are necessary and sufficient conditions for provocation manslaughter. In our view, an intentional killing deserves to be punished and labeled as manslaughter rather than murder only when, because of provocation, this particular killing is significantly less wrongful than the standard intentional killing and when, because of the actor’s partial lack of control, he is less blameworthy for committing an act that remains all-things-considered wrongful. In elaborating and defending our account, we rebut the oft-repeated but rarely challenged propositions that justification and excuse, even in partial forms, are mutually exclusive, and that the very notion of partial justification is incoherent. We also draw forth implications for how the sentencing ranges for murder and manslaughter should be related.

Suggested Citation

Farrell, Ian P. and Berman, Mitchell N., Provocation Manslaughter as Partial Justification and Partial Excuse (August 16, 2012). 52 William and Mary Law Review 1027 (2011), U Denver Legal Studies Research Paper No. 12-28, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2130692 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2130692

Ian P. Farrell (Contact Author)

The University of Denver Sturm College of Law ( email )

2255 E. Evans Avenue
Denver, CO 80208
United States

Mitchell N. Berman

University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School ( email )

3501 Sansom Street
Philadelphia, PA 19104
United States

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
120
Abstract Views
2,155
Rank
419,528
PlumX Metrics