Abstract
In this essay I examine the provocation or "heat of passion" defense in law, with particular attention to the following questions: Is the defense a justification or an excuse? What is the rationale for having such a defense? Should there be such a defense? I reject the view that it is purely a partial excuse, and instead take it to be a hybrid--part excuse, part justification (and of course a partial rather than complete defense). After canvassing the reasons--and strong reasons they are--for abolishing the defense, I support retaining it, but only for cases in which the provocation was a clear and serious wrong. This reflects my emphasis on the justificatory component of the defense.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Title of host publication | Setting the Moral Compass: Essays by Women Philosophers |
| Editors | Chesire Calhoun |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press |
| Pages | 353-378 |
| Number of pages | 25 |
| Publication status | Published - 2004 |