In law, provocation is when a person is considered to have committed a criminal act partly because of a preceding set of events that might cause a reasonable individual to lose self control.
If a crime is caused by provocation, it is said to be committed in the heat of passion, under an irresistible urge incited by the provoking events, and without being entirely determined by reason.
At that time, not only was it acceptable, but was socially required that a man respond with controlled violence if his honor or dignity were insulted or threatened.
[5] During the 19th century, as social norms began changing, the idea that it was desirable for dignified men to respond with violence when they were insulted or ridiculed began losing traction and was replaced with the view that while those responses may not be ideal, that they were a normal human reaction resulting from a loss of self-control, and, as such, they deserved to be considered as a mitigating circumstance.
[5] Today, the use of provocation as a legal defense is generally controversial, because it appears to enable defendants to receive more lenient treatment because they allowed themselves to be provoked.
Furor brevis or "heat of passion", is the term used in criminal law to describe the emotional state of mind following a provocation, in which acts are considered to be at least partially caused by loss of self-control, so the acts are not entirely governed by reason or expressed "[It's the heat of passion] which renders a man deaf to the voice of reason".
[6] In common law, "passion usually means rage, but it also includes fear or any violent and intense emotion sufficient to dethrone reason".
[7] The new defense removed the "sudden" requirement, as it wanted to cover battered women who lose control over a long period.
54-55 Coroners and Justice Act 2009 also removed sexual infidelity as a qualifying form of provocation, but in a recent controversial decision by Lord Judge in R v Clinton [2012] 1 Cr App R 26 in the Court of Appeal, Lord Judge interpreted the new offense as allowing for sexual infidelity to count under the third prong of the new defense.
[8] In some common law jurisdictions such as the UK, Canada, and several Australian states, the defense of provocation is only available against a charge of murder and only acts to reduce the conviction to manslaughter.
"[11] Provocation as a partial defence for murder came into spotlight in New Zealand during 2009 following the trial of 33-year-old university tutor Clayton Weatherston, with calls for its abolition except during sentencing.
Article 232(2) of the Criminal Code states that provocation is: "Conduct of the victim that would constitute an indictable offense under this Act that is punishable by five or more years of imprisonment and that is of such a nature as to be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control is provocation for the purposes of this section, if the accused acted on it on the sudden and before there was time for their passion to cool.
In one famous example, prosecutors in California refused to charge astronaut Buzz Aldrin with assault after he punched conspiracy theorist Bart Sibrel in the face for aggressively confronting him and calling him "a coward, and a liar, and a thief."
[22] Ironically, English law considers the act of intentionally provoking another person to be crime in and of itself under the charge of Fear or provocation of violence.
Data from Australia shows that the partial defense of provocation that converts murder into manslaughter has been used successfully primarily in two circumstances: sexual infidelity where a male kills his female partner or her lover; and non-violent homosexual advances.