Does passion grant unaccountability? (a brief ethical theory)

[Hmm]

So apparently, there is a legal defense that can be used in cases of murder called "Passion Provocation". There is another name for it too but I forgot what it is. It's basically where the murderer gets so pissed off at their lover (<this is the passion part) that they are considered to be in altered state of mind and therefore are not accountable for their actions at that moment. I believe there have been a few cases of this where the defendant was found not guilty because of this.

The one case I remember was of a guy who was with a woman for a while. They weren't married but had a kid together. Then they broke up and she got together with a different man very quickly and got engaged to this new man but the Ex-lover did not find out about this new romance she had until a day or two before her wedding and by surprise. On her wedding day, when she and the bridesmaids were getting dressed, the Ex-lover busted into the house in a fit of jealousy and shot her dead in her wedding dress and I think shot a kid too. i know the bride died for sure. But he and his lawyers used the passion provocation defense.

So do you think it's a legitimate defense?

[Magic Poriferan]

Copy cat!



Ahem, but to answer the question, I feel that this is like the alcohol situation, but worse. Not only do I disagree with the theory for all the reasons I disagree with the intoxication defense, this one doesn't even require a person to ingest a mind-altering agent. It means the risk that they will commit a crime is inborn. That means it's hard to avoid, harder to change, higher of a risk.

[Victor]

Originally Posted by Hmm

So do you think it's a legitimate defense?

In other parts of the world, they are called honour killings.

[Hmm]

Originally Posted by Victor

In other parts of the world, they are called honour killings.

Thank you. Yes, that's it.

Now that you remind me, there was another case recently in the U.S of a father who killed his daughter because she had sex before marriage. They were Muslim and honor killings were practiced in his religion so it was used as his defense.

[Jon]

a legit defense is one that excuses a party from legal responsibility. in this case, there are precedents. therefore, it is a legit defense.

is this morally responsible? you can only answer this question after you build an account of morality and answer larger meta-ethical questions.

[cafe]

I don't know a lot about the law or how it works from state to state, but in narrow circumstances, I can see it as a mitigating factor. Premeditation or lack thereof is a valid consideration, IMO. So . . . mercy in sentencing, yes. Acquittal, usually not.

[Jack Flak]

Not Guilty because of it? I've never heard of that. Usually it's the diff. between first and second deg. murder.

[GZA]

I think the best you could argue with that would be to reduce the sentance due to provocation. You can only be completely freed if you were provoked due to life-threatening circumstances, but if something makes you go apeshit and kill you are still a danger in society in case you snap again, so I don't see how that can be a good reason to get off free.

[animenagai]

no it is not an excuse. take kantian duty ethics for example. what is ethical is what you do out of obligation. when you do things out of obligation it often isn't the easiest thing for you to do, that's why you need obligations in the first place. the ethical thing to do is to overcome your passion ad do what's right. this is the case in duty ethics, utlitarianism, human rights... the list goes on.

[evan]

Originally Posted by Hmm

So do you think it's a legitimate defense?

Not at all.