ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses the provocation mitigation for homicide, which reduces the blameworthiness of an individual who committed murder in a “heat of passion” or an “extreme emotional disturbance” and was therefore acting in a compromised mental state. A provocation mitigation has the power to affect the grading of an offense and can thus decrease charges from murder to manslaughter, for instance. The chapter begins with the story of Dr. John Webster, a university professor who killed his colleague in a fit of rage and was sentenced to hang after his actions were not deemed to be the result of a “reasonable provocation.” The chapter then reveals the case of Dan White, a San Francisco politician who murdered his political adversaries in a rage and later benefitted from a diminished-capacity mitigation and was found guilty of manslaughter. The chapter then reveals the diversity in state approaches to homicide mitigation and questions whether or not provocation or extreme emotional disturbance mitigation should impact offense grading or sentencing.
