Provocation: the ongoing subservience of principle to tradition

The defence of provocation has been highly criticised. Mostcommentators argue that the defence i" misguided. There does not appearto be any community pressure to preserve the defence. Despite this,legislatures are reluctant to abolish provocation as a partial defence to,murder. This article examines the underlying rationale for tile defence. I1concludes that the defence is founded on a flaw~ed assumption abouthuman nature-that people are captive to some of their emotional states.It is also argued that the convoluted and confusing (if not confused) testfor provocation is evidence of the unsound nature of the defence-it issimply a case of not being able to develop a feasible (and candid) principlefor a doctrine that is devoid of a sound justification.