Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFeltoe, Geoff
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-14T09:26:24Z
dc.date.available2020-10-14T09:26:24Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.citationFeltoe, G.(2018). Should provocation be a partial defence to intentional killing of an adulterous spouse? University of Zimbabwe Law Journal, 1(1). 232-238.en_US
dc.identifier.issn2617-2046
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10646/3901
dc.description.abstractDuring interaction in society, people often provoke others by their conduct or their words. There would be chaos and disorder in the society if people responded with violence when subjected to every minor provocation they may encounter. The underlying policy in relation to this defence is therefore that, generally, the law expects people to exercise restraint and self-control when provoked and to refrain from engaging in violence against the provokers. The defence of provocation is thus a limited defence in Zimbabwe. For crimes other than murder, provocation does not operate as a defence but can only be a mitigatory factor. For murder, provocation will at most be a partial defence. Section 239 of the Criminal Law (Codification and Reform) Act [Chapter 9:23] codified the common law two stage approach to provocation as a defence to a charge of murder.en_US
dc.language.isoen_ZWen_US
dc.publisherUniversity of Zimbabween_US
dc.subjectProvocationen_US
dc.subjectCriminal Law (Codification and Reform) Acten_US
dc.subjectCriminal Lawen_US
dc.subjectAdulteryen_US
dc.subjectMitigatory factoren_US
dc.titleShould provocation be a partial defence to intentional killing of an adulterous spouse?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record