Previous research has established that provocation increases aggression. Therefore, researchers have begun to examine factors that distinguish between people who respond to provocation with and without aggression (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Carlson, Marcus-Newhall, & Miller, 1990; Jacquin, Harrison, & Alford, 2006). Until the current study, no researchers had experimentally investigated provocation in dating relationships. This study examined certain relationship variables that may influence whether dating partners respond to provocation with aggression. Young adult dating partners provided written responses to hypothetical relationship scenarios. As expected, jealousy-provoking scenarios resulted in more passive, verbally, and physically aggressive responses than neutral scenarios. Higher ratings of relationship commitment, investment, and satisfaction were associated with fewer aggressive responses.

In the past 20 years the defence of provocation has shifted from the periphery of South African law to a fully developed defence available to those who kill when provoked. Not only is the defence available to the provoked, but it has been extended to those who kill when subjected to emotional stress. However, the defence is mirred in controversy and bad decisions. Not only has the precise nature of the defence not been clarified, but this lack of clarity has been exacerbated by confusing decisions of our courts. This confusion is partly a result of the development of the defence of incapacity, particularly its extension to cases involving provocation and mental stress, and partly a result of its application in practice. Three major problems have plagued the provocation defence. Firstly, the courts have confused the defence of sane automatism with that of non-pathological incapacity. Secondly, there has been an implied use of an objective test in determining criminal incapacity where the enquiry has clearly been a subjective one. Thirdly, it has been held that the problem may not so much be the subjective aspect of provocation, but rather its application. The real problem seems to lie in the theoretical confusion as to the precise meaning of lack of “selfcontrol”. Lastly, on occasion the courts have failed to distinguish lack of capacity from diminished responsibility. Thus, in order to gain clarity concerning this “grey” area of the law these problems have created, it is necessary for South African law to consult more authoritative sources to receive guidance for the problems identified. One of those sources that has been consulted is that of English law. English law, however, deals with the defence of provocation in a different manner. Raising a defence of provocation here does not result in an acquittal but rather in a reduction of the charge to manslaughter. However, the English law on provocation is also 7 plagued by various problems. Firstly, there is the issue of cumulative provocation. Generally, there is little difficulty in cases where there is no “immediate trigger”. Secondly, the fundamental flaw with the current test of the reasonable man is that the courts have had to swing between the two aims of taking a compassionate view of human frailty while endeavoring to maintain an objective standard of the reasonable man. Lastly, it can be said that the problem with the proportionality requirement is that it makes the provocation defence dependant upon the assessment of the accused’s conduct after he or she lost his or her selfcontrol rather than on his or her giving way to passion and losing control in the first place. It is clear that from the problems identified in both South African law and English law concerning the defence of provocation the courts in each jurisdiction will have to pay careful attentio n to the problems highlighted and apply the law in such a way so as to ensure clarity and legal certainty.

No description available.

No abstract available. / Thesis (LL.M.)-University of Natal, Durban, 2000.

Thesis (LLM)-University of Pretoria, 2008. / Abstract in English. Includes bibliographical references .

La prévalence du trouble oppositionnel avec provocation (TOP) chez les enfants est particulièrement élevée dans la population générale québécoise. Les conséquences liées à ce trouble sont lourdes et tendent à persister dans le temps. Puisque le TOP réside plus spécifiquement dans la relation problématique que l'enfant entretient avec ses figures d'autorité, porter attention aux variables du fonctionnement familial qui y sont associées est une avenue prometteuse pour identifier les cibles d’intervention à préconiser. L'objectif poursuivi dans ce mémoire est donc de déterminer les variables du fonctionnement familial les plus fortement associées à la présence d’un TOP chez les enfants et de vérifier l’effet modérateur du sexe. L'utilisation du modèle de fonctionnement familial de Pauzé et Petitpas (2013) a permis d'identifier les variables familiales les plus proximales à l'enfant et plus susceptibles d'avoir une influence sur son fonctionnement quotidien. L'échantillon est composé d'un groupe de 197 enfants (141 garçons et 56 filles) ayant un TOP comparé à un groupe témoin composé de 185 enfants (93 garçons et 92 filles) sans TOP, ni autres troubles de comportement. Au plan univarié, les résultats montrent que le fonctionnement familial global plus faible, la relation détériorée entre le parent et l'enfant, le faible engagement parental, le manque de supervision et la discipline inconstante sont significativement associés au groupe d'enfants présentant un TOP, en comparaison au groupe témoin. Au plan multivarié, les résultats montrent que la structure familiale (le fait de vivre dans une famille monoparentale ou recomposée) ainsi qu'une relation détériorée entre le parent et l'enfant ressortent comme étant les variables les plus fortement associées au TOP chez les enfants. La qualité de la relation parent-enfant serait d’ailleurs particulièrement importante pour les filles. Il y a donc tout lieu de travailler l'engagement parental, la supervision, la discipline et enfin, le fonctionnement familial global, mais la relation entre le parent et l'enfant demeure une cible d'intervention à prioriser.

My thesis seeks to resolve key areas of debate regarding the nature of provocation as a defence in English Law, by reference to both historical and philosophical analysis. Academic commentators on the doctrine disagree on whether it should be seen as essentially an excusing condition alone, such as insanity, or should be understood as an excuse involving some element of "partial [moral] justification", such as duress. I seek to resolve this debate by considering at a deeper philosophical level the nature of anger and action in anger. I argue that English Law has historically operated with two equally plausible conceptions of anger, anger as righteous indignation and anger as a loss of self-control. The former was the conception drawn on in the development of the early modern law, and the latter is the conception drawn on in the development of the modern law. I go on to argue that controversy, referred to above, over the nature of provocation as a defence, can be only resolved by making clear the distinction between the two kinds of anger. Action in anger conceived as a loss of self-control bears more of a family resemblance to defences such as (temporary) insanity. Action in anger conceived as righteous indignation bears more of a family resemblance to defences such as duress. I argue that whichever conception of anger is in issue, however, action in anger can be open to moral criticism, because all kinds of action in anger are based on at least a judgment of moral wrongdoing, that may be subject of such criticism. I argue that the law may thus legitimately require at least some moral justification for action in anger before allowing a defence of provocation to be pleaded successfully.

No description available.

Valstybė kovoje su įvairių rūšių ir formų nusikalstamumu taiko neviešo pobūdžio veiksmus, iš jų ir kriminalinės žvalgybos informacijos rinkimo būdą – nusikalstamos veikos imitavimą. Neviešo pobūdžio veiksmai būtini įgyvendinant šalių baudžiamąją politiką, bet yra neišvengiamai susiję su žmogaus teisių ir laisvių apribojimais ar kitokiais jų suvaržymais. Imituodami nusikalstamą veiką, teisėsaugos institucijų pareigūnai privalo elgtis išimtinai preciziškai, vadovautis jiems suteikta kompetencija ir neperžengti leistino elgesio ribų. Provokacija jų veikloje pripažįstama kaip absoliučiai draudžiamas veiksmas. Ji suprantama, kaip atskirų teisėsaugos institucijų pareigūnų arba su jais bendradarbiaujančių fizinių asmenų neteisėta veikla. Bet koks provokuojantis ar su provokacija supanašėjantis elgesys privalo būti vertintinas kaip neteisėtas ir peržengiantis leistinas veikimo ribas. Provokacijos esmė teismų praktikoje dažniausiai siejama su aktyvia teisėsaugos institucijų pareigūnų ar jų pasitelktų fizinių asmenų veikla. Vis dėlto, galbūt galima provokuoti ir asmens visiškai neskatinant daryti teisei priešingą veiką, nesant aktyvią provokaciją liudijančių požymių? Galbūt konstatuoti provokaciją galima ir kai dėl ilgalaikio teisėsaugos institucijų pareigūnų pasyvių veiksmų tęstinumo, turinčio esminę įtaką asmens apsisprendimui, sudaroma situacija, sukeliamomis pasekmėmis prilygstanti asmens provokavimui? Ši situacija galėtų būti laikoma pasyviąja, netiesiogine provokacija. Tai... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / The state in dealing with different types and forms of crime, its most dangerous variants use a variety of non-public actions. Used secret actions and measures for their implementation must have the legitimacy, appropriateness, reasonableness, proportionality, public and secret coordination principles and the need to apply them. Secret research activities are necessary for implementation of criminal policy, they are seen as a means to achieve the objectives of the criminal process, but they are inevitably associated with limitations of human rights and freedom. In the current Lithuanian Republic Law on criminal intelligence and Lithuanian Republic Code of Criminal Procedure in the fight against crime, law enforcement officials investigate the possibility of disclosing its identity and the application of criminal simulation. Evaluating the two laws governed as offense simulation criminal intelligence collection method, it is reasonable to state that in this way there are made better facilitates for detection and investigation of the most serious or very complex and well–organized crime. Officers of law enforcement, carrying non-public nature actions, their offense and the simulation must deal exclusively with precision, follow the competence given to them and lie within the boundaries between permissible and prohibited actions. The required authorization of the criminal simulation, the prohibition to incite and provoke people and simulating actions in foreseen actions in... [to full text]

Diss. (sammanfattning) Stockholm : Karol. inst., 2003. / Härtill 5 uppsatser.