I also hate that subjective judgment aspect of provocation - like the Victorian case of R v Dincer, in which it was “OK” for a Turkish man to lose control and kill his daughter for entering into a relationship of which he did not approve because that was something which would be considered provocative in the Turkish community.

This meant taking ethnicity, intellectual impairment etc into account when working out whether the accused had actually been ‘provoked’. As I understand it (this has been all over the news over here), the courts have been stretching the definitions of both provocation and self defence in order to cover women who kill abusive partners.

They’ve had to do this because - as someone pointed out in one of LE’s links - murder attracts a life sentence, whether a gangland killing or due to a pub punch-up gone wrong.