Gender Equality, Social Values and Provocation Law in the United States, Canada and Australia
13 American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy, and the Law (forthcoming 2006)
In this article I examine and compare the partial defense of provocation as it applies to domestic homicide in Australia, Canada, and the United States on both the gendered-male basis of jealous rage and gendered-female basis of fear. I explain why substantive equality, prevalent under Canadian constitutional law, has not resulted in woman-friendly provocation rules in Canada and the United States and why Australia is the leader in incorporating substantive equality into its provocation doctrine. I conclude that the main reason why some Australian jurisdictions have abolished provocation and others have female-friendly versions of the doctrine is that, unlike Canada and the United States, some Australian states do not have mandatory minimum sentencing for either murder or manslaughter. I further conclude that social norms have incorporated substantive equality into application of provocation law in all three countries and that therefore there may not be as great a need to reform the law of provocation as there has been in the past.
Comparative and Foreign Law | Criminal Law | Criminal Procedure | Law and Gender | Law and Society
Date of this Version
Caroline A. Forell, "Gender Equality, Social Values and Provocation Law in the United States, Canada and Australia" (February 13, 2006). bepress Legal Series. bepress Legal Series.Working Paper 699.