Provocation As A Defence To Criminal Liability
Provocation on its own it not a total defense as to make the accused discharged of his guilt. It reduces murder to manslaughter. This essay considers the adequacy of this defense by examining it under the penal laws of Nigeria and different centers.
The general requirement is that of the deceased must have been caused by accused upon provocation induced by the deceased himself and this must be offered before the accused had time for his passion to cool down. The injury inflicted must also be proportional and must be one as would have caused a reasonable man to resort to the same consequence
The adequate of this defense, in the light of the scope of this essay is purely a psychological question. The test of provocation is inadequate. It is plainly illogical not to recognize the fact that different people react differently to stimuli and the law, by its hording expects a man dethroned in his reasoning faculty to inflict a reasonably proportional injury which only a reasonable man in his senses could do.
The aim and objective of this work is to access the meaning of the term provocation as provided for under the penal and criminal codes and other relevant statutes, case law and by various author, its nature, element and the condition under which the defense can avail a person from criminal liability.
Table of Content COVER PAGE
CERTIFICATION PAGE
ABSTRACT
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
TABLE OF CASES
TABLE OF STATUTES
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.0.0: INTRODUCTION
1.1.0: BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.2.0: OBJECTIVE OF STUDY
1.3.0: FOCUS OF STUDY
1.4.0: SCOPE OF STUDY
1.5.0: METHODOLOGY
1.6.0: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.7.0: DEFINITION OF TERMS
1.8.0: CONCLUSION
CHAPTER TWO
DEFENCES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
2.0.0: INTRODUCTION
2.1.0: DEFINITION OF CRIME
2.2.0: GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
2.3:1: ACTUS REUS
2.3:2: MENS REA
2.4.0: CONCLUSION
CHAPTER THREE
NATURE OF PROVOCATION
3.0.0: INTRODUCTION
3.1.0: DEFINITION OF PROVOCATION
3.2.0: DEFENCE TO PROVOCATION
3.2:1: DEFENCE TO PROVOCATION UNDER THE PENAL CODE
3.2:2: DEFENCE TO PROVOCATION UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE
3.3.0: CONCLUSION
CHAPTER FOUR
THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO PROVOCATION
4.0.0: INTRODUCTION
4.I.0: BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY
4.2.0: EXCEPTION OR EXEMPTION TO THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY
4.3.0:THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION
4.4.0:EFFECTOF A SUCCESSFUL PLEA OF PROVOCATION
4.5:0: CONCLUSION
CHAPTER FIVE
GENERAL CONCLUSION
5.0.0: CONCLUSION
5.1.0: RECOMMENDATION
The general requirement is that of the deceased must have been caused by accused upon provocation induced by the deceased himself and this must be offered before the accused had time for his passion to cool down. The injury inflicted must also be proportional and must be one as would have caused a reasonable man to resort to the same consequence
The adequate of this defense, in the light of the scope of this essay is purely a psychological question. The test of provocation is inadequate. It is plainly illogical not to recognize the fact that different people react differently to stimuli and the law, by its hording expects a man dethroned in his reasoning faculty to inflict a reasonably proportional injury which only a reasonable man in his senses could do.
The aim and objective of this work is to access the meaning of the term provocation as provided for under the penal and criminal codes and other relevant statutes, case law and by various author, its nature, element and the condition under which the defense can avail a person from criminal liability.
Table of Content COVER PAGE
CERTIFICATION PAGE
ABSTRACT
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
TABLE OF CASES
TABLE OF STATUTES
LIST OF ABBREVIATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.0.0: INTRODUCTION
1.1.0: BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.2.0: OBJECTIVE OF STUDY
1.3.0: FOCUS OF STUDY
1.4.0: SCOPE OF STUDY
1.5.0: METHODOLOGY
1.6.0: LITERATURE REVIEW
1.7.0: DEFINITION OF TERMS
1.8.0: CONCLUSION
CHAPTER TWO
DEFENCES TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY
2.0.0: INTRODUCTION
2.1.0: DEFINITION OF CRIME
2.2.0: GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
2.3:1: ACTUS REUS
2.3:2: MENS REA
2.4.0: CONCLUSION
CHAPTER THREE
NATURE OF PROVOCATION
3.0.0: INTRODUCTION
3.1.0: DEFINITION OF PROVOCATION
3.2.0: DEFENCE TO PROVOCATION
3.2:1: DEFENCE TO PROVOCATION UNDER THE PENAL CODE
3.2:2: DEFENCE TO PROVOCATION UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE
3.3.0: CONCLUSION
CHAPTER FOUR
THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO PROVOCATION
4.0.0: INTRODUCTION
4.I.0: BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY
4.2.0: EXCEPTION OR EXEMPTION TO THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CRIMINAL LIABILITY
4.3.0:THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE DEFENCE OF PROVOCATION
4.4.0:EFFECTOF A SUCCESSFUL PLEA OF PROVOCATION
4.5:0: CONCLUSION
CHAPTER FIVE
GENERAL CONCLUSION
5.0.0: CONCLUSION
5.1.0: RECOMMENDATION
