Didn't work with your provocation defence...
'She was fifteen years old, going on thirty-five, Doc, and she told me she was eighteen, she was very willing, I practically had to take to sewing my pants shut. Between you and me, uh, she might have been fifteen, but when you get that little red beaver right up there in front of you, I don't think it's crazy at all and I don't think you do either. No man alive could resist that, and that's why I got into jail to begin with'
(, Sun 30 Nov 2014, 19:18, Reply)
OK. Let's get this straight. Those ARE my words. But I was 5.
(
Jabberwoc misses D.R. and Quinch, Sun 30 Nov 2014, 20:11,
Reply)
The provocation defense would only have been available if he had killed one of them.
I know how shit it is to be bullied as a kid, but even maiming is pretty disproportionate.
(, Sun 30 Nov 2014, 21:55, Reply)
killing is disproportionate also
so why have the provocation defence for one crime and not the other?
(, Sun 30 Nov 2014, 22:00, Reply)
Can't answer that.
One of the few universal truths is that the law does not always make sense.
(, Sun 30 Nov 2014, 22:04, Reply)
the answer could be that the law changes haphazardly very very slowly
(, Sun 30 Nov 2014, 22:15, Reply)