The provocation defence is based on the assumption that there is an intrinsic relationship between anger and physically violent behaviour. However, anger is a human emotion, and studies have shown that physical violence, or any other form of violence or abuse, is a learnt behaviour based on the principle of cost and reward. If the reward is higher than the cost, the perpetrator is likely to repeat the behaviour. In simple terms, "It works; I can get away with it; I’ll do it again."

All human beings experience anger at one time or another. People get angry at co-workers, bosses, neighbours, and spouses. Teachers get angry at students, whose behaviour can be quite provocative. Yet, people don’t ordinarily kill or physically hurt others in order to get their way, and when they do, society holds them accountable. RCMP and FBI statistics show that in 95 percent of all domestic violence cases, it is the male partner who exhibits violent behaviour toward his female partner. A 1997 report on intimate femicide in Ontario unveiled that, between 1991 and 1994, 71 percent of all female homicide victims were killed by their intimate partners or ex-partners. Research on domestic homicide cases shows that these killings usually take place when the female partner wants to leave the relationship. Statistics show that when women do leave an abusive relationship, they are at 75 percent higher risk to be killed by their abusers than are women who stay in the abusive relationship. Therefore, women often feel that they cannot safely leave the relationship without putting their lives in danger. When women kill their male partners, they usually do so after having been subjected to a prolonged period of domestic abuse.

The uses of physical violence as well as other forms of domestic abuse are measures that are taken by one person in order to force another person into compliance. When perpetrators of domestic violence are asked why they beat their intimate partners, the most common responses are, "When I hit her, she listens," or, "I wanted her to listen," or, " I needed to teach her a lesson." These comments clearly demonstrate that such behaviour is premeditated and intended to either bring about change or maintain a status quo of a given circumstance.

Batterers are selective about whom they beat. They usually exhibit physical violence toward their intimate partners, but at the same time do not beat their bosses or co-workers when they experience frustration, tension, or anger in the workplace. Batterers select the time and place for their abusive behaviour. They usually choose to beat their partners in the privacy of their own home rather than in public places. Batterers select where they hit their partners. If the battering takes place immediately before the couple is expected at a social event, batterers often cause injuries to body parts that can or will be covered with clothing. If the purpose of the beating is to keep the spouse from attending a public or social function, batterers often hit their partners in a place where bruising will be visible to anyone they meet. If the victim still chooses to leave the house, she is faced with the embarrassment of having to explain the bruise. Batterers determine how long and how hard they hit. They often make sure that the injuries do not interfere with their partners’ daily chores.

This behaviour pattern clearly indicates that batterers do not suffer from a loss of control when they commit violent acts against their intimate partners. Their behaviour is calculated and carries every notion of intent.

Women who work at women's shelters are well aware that abusive men refer to cases publicized in the media, where the defences of provocation are successfully used to reduce the conviction to manslaughter with a low sentence, to further intimidate and control the women in their lives. Provocation gives men the legal and social message that their violence is excusable, which reinforces the batterer's mentality that his wife or partner is to blame for his anger and violent behavior.

For an in-depth discussion on how the defences of provocation are used to reduce responsibility in killings motivated by sexism, homophobia, and racism;  the arguments to abolish these defences; as well as the arguments to expand the defence of self defence, please go to  http://www.nawl.ca/provocation.htm and http://www.elizabethfry.ca/Response/cover.htm

Back to Homepage