Abstract
The argument that the provocation defence is adeeply sexed excuse for murder and should beabolished is often dismissed as polemical. Thisarticle challenges this subordinating strategyfavoured by the law of provocation's apologistsand continues to make the case againstprovocation. Drawing on a range of theoreticalapproaches to questions related to polemic,anger, and ethics, it strives to valorisefeminist and queer anger about provocation'svictim-blaming narratives, while remainingcognisant of poststructuralistproblematisations of both law and law reform.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
