Merging provocation and diminished responsibility: some reasons for scepticism

Chalmers, J. (2004) Merging provocation and diminished responsibility: some reasons for scepticism. Criminal Law Review, pp. 198-212.

Full text not currently available from Enlighten.


Opposes the argument in favour or merging the please of provocation and diminished responsibility under one single partial defence as proposed by R.D. Mackay and B.J. Mitchell in Crim. L.R. 2003, 745-759 in the context of the Law Commission's consideration of this option as part of its review of the law of provocation more generally. Evaluates the partial defence contained in the United States' Model Penal Code referred to as extreme mental or emotional disturbance (EMED), as advocated by the earlier authors. Examines: (1) why the Model Code's EMED provision has had only a limited influence across the United States' jurisdictions; (2) whether the EMED provision does in fact merge the two pleas; (3) a series of arguments challenging the validity and workability of a merged plea.

Item Type:Articles
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Chalmers, Professor James
Authors: Chalmers, J.
College/School:College of Social Sciences > School of Law
Journal Name:Criminal Law Review
Journal Abbr.:Crim. Law Rev.
ISSN (Online):0011-135X

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record