SaintsFan wrote:I aint wriggling at all. I'm very comfortable with my position on this. Reardon and Pryce were a pair of idiots and Reardon risked both their reputations just to find out whether the rumour that his wife was shagging some bloke was true.
Incidentally, I do believe that provocation is still recognised in law. You might want to make a note of that when you make your sweeping statements about domestic violence. Domestic violence comes in many forms and it is in no way unique to women.
Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. Including marriage breakdowns.
Provocation is only recognised as a defence to a charge of murder and is only a limited defence. If successfully pleaded it reduces the offence the provoked party is guilty of to manslaughter. It does not excuse the guilty party. It is not a defence to any other offence.
Provocation may be relevant in mitigation, i.e. reducing the sentence the offender will receive, but in cases of domestic violence pleading things like the infidelity of the victim will NOT be accepted as provocation.
You keep suggest that marriage breakdowns are not simple. We are talking here about an offence of assault, not an inquiry into the rights and wrongs of a marriage breakdown. I repeat (yet again) that I have never said anything about the Reardon marriage. You have. It is however irrelevant.
No women (or man for that matter) should fear violence at the hands of his/her ex (or be afraid that a new partner will suffer violence at the hands of his/her ex or their friends). End of story. It is not complicated. It is quite simple.
