Provocation: the ongoing subservience of principle to tradition

The defence of provocation has been highly criticised. Most<br>commentators argue that the defence i" misguided. There does not appear<br>to be any community pressure to preserve the defence. Despite this,<br>legislatures are reluctant to abolish provocation as a partial defence to,<br>murder. This article examines the underlying rationale for tile defence. I1<br>concludes that the defence is founded on a flaw~ed assumption about<br>human nature-that people are captive to some of their emotional states.<br>It is also argued that the convoluted and confusing (if not confused) test<br>for provocation is evidence of the unsound nature of the defence-it is<br>simply a case of not being able to develop a feasible (and candid) principle<br>for a doctrine that is devoid of a sound justification.<br>