Murder is an emotive topic. The proposed shake-up of our current homicide laws, the first in over 50 years, is bound to bring about polarised opinion. But Harriet Harman, minister for women, deputy leader, and the main player in parliament who has tirelessly campaigned to bring about these reforms, is adamant that the new laws will save lives. Harman, an uncompromising feminist, has long considered the provocation defence, which reduces murder to manslaughter, to be pernicious as it is misused by some men who kill their female partners. She is right.
Currently, provocation can be used as a partial defence in cases where there is a sudden loss of self-control or temper. This does not often apply to women who have been battered, raped and abused by a male partner whom they then kill. There are many in the criminal justice system who do not consider sustained violence towards women a good enough reason to kill, and ask "why didn't she leave him?". And the reality is that often such women cannot afford a sudden loss of control when their life is in danger, and will wait until he is asleep or incapacitated before defending herself against future attack.
Often, a battered woman who kills her abuser is stuck with a defence of diminished responsibility, whether or not she was suffering from an abnormality of mind at the time. We could describe the anomaly as "men lose their tempers, women lose their marbles".
Where provocation has often been successful is in cases where men argue that their honour has been besmirched. For example if a man comes home and finds his wife in bed with another man, or if she nags him constantly to take out the rubbish, it is often considered reasonable by the courts that he strangles her, and then maintains that he "saw red" and lost control of his actions. This attitude is rooted in the age-old notion that married women are chattel, and the provocation defence itself can be traced back at least to the 17th century.
But we are about to see the end of this defence of provocation, which Harman sees as an easy justification for killing in anger. Women who are suffering domestic violence kill in fear, which is why a new defence of partial self-defence will be open to them in the near future, says Harman. This, of course, would apply to men who were genuinely the victims of sustained abuse by a partner. But as Harman puts it: "The reality is that, although it is not a gendered defence, 86% of domestic homicides are committed by men, and the victims are their female partners. The infidelity clause, or 'nagging and shagging' defence, is overwhelmingly used by men."
These reforms, although a long time coming, are along the right lines. It is wrong to kill out of jealously, or because someone insults you. This is not serious provocation, nor should it be an excuse for murder. Whereas battered women are often trapped in their situation, with nowhere to run, the victims of "nagging" and infidelity can simply leave the relationship, without the fear of being tracked down and killed.
Although there are those disappointed that the government did not go down the American route of replacing manslaughter with second-degree murder, it was right not to. There should be a distinct crime of murder - a crime in which no mitigating circumstances feature. Why should women, such as the late Emma Humphreys, the victim of horrendous abuse by the man she killed, be labelled a murderer? Emma once told me that the stigma was almost as bad as the life sentence that came with it.
As for the provocation defence, it is the end of the road. Let's hope that, with the end of an excuse for men who kill for the most paltry reasons, it will mean some women's lives are saved.