tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post109929618761492945..comments2024-03-25T19:48:24.624+11:00Comments on Oz Conservative: Does the law favour men?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6832901.post-1164699532786513282006-11-28T18:38:00.000+11:002006-11-28T18:38:00.000+11:00Hmm, interesting post! The Ramage case was an unpl...Hmm, interesting post! The Ramage case was an unpleasant one. From what I read in the press, I did not think that Mr Ramage deserved to be found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder, but then, I wasn't a juror. I may have felt entirely differently if I had sat through all the evidence. I have worked in Courts before and if there's one thing I know it's that the press is often inaccurate in reporting legal cases.<BR/><BR/>I think the attitude of society and the law has changed. 30 - 40 years ago, I think a woman would have had much more difficulty establishing provocation because of the requirement of immediate loss of control. Some of the cases we studied in Criminal Law date from this period. Certainly, over the last 15 years, this requirement of immediate loss of control has been relaxed (see for example, R v Chhay (1994) 72 A Crim R 1).<BR/><BR/>I'm just not comfortable with provocation as a defence, for men or for women. It suggests that there is an "excuse" for killing someone. If such matters are taken into account I would prefer them to be taken into account in sentencing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com