Prostitute proves provocation and is only convicted of manslaughter after murdering a client. what was accepted as provocation is ridiculous.

PlayMeWhile · 2012-10-19T01:35:50+00:00

Victim Blaming.

typhonblue · 2012-10-19T03:43:26+00:00

The cases that they're obliquely referring to in which men got off due to provocation via 'sexual jealousy'... in both cases the men were actually being verbally or physically attacked by the people they murdered.

Her client was merely describing a fetish(if her testimony is true) and no threat to her.

In fact her situation is... well, how did he provoke her by any reasonable understanding of the word?

And this is the case they use to defend the law while situations in which men used it as a defence in situations of actual physical or verbal assault are the cases that are making people call it into question?

This world... sometimes you just want it to stop. But it never does stop getting more stupid and inexplicable.

Marshal631 · 2012-10-19T05:27:54+00:00

She was recently raped, and was sexually assaulted as a child. On her first day "on the job" again, I can understand a breakdown. Maybe kick him out; maybe, maybe hit him if he doesn't stop. But to hit him with a fucking brick 30 fucking times and then cut his throat. That, I really can't understand. As I understand this was in New South Wales; I used to be pretty proud to be an Aussie. That pride is quickly becoming shame.

2012-10-19T08:23:15+00:00

Community outrage over the short sentences received by men whose killings were motivated by sexual jealousy in two recent high profile cases has prompted the NSW government to reconsider whether provocation should be permitted as murder defence.

I see, they weren't trying the case, they were counter-balancing previous verdicts.

mikesteane · 2012-10-19T03:01:35+00:00

Crying in court makes murder into manslaughter it would be seem. Unless it's a bloke crying in which case he should man up.

2012-10-19T10:26:09+00:00

quite irritating as the article doesn't really question her defence when the only person who can counter it is conveniently dead

Forgotten_Son · 2012-10-19T13:52:03+00:00

An analysis by a Deakin University criminologist, Kate Fitz-Gibbon, shows that only three of the 18 defendants who have successfully used the defence since 2005 were women.

Sure thats why this law is stupid. Because nasty men use it as a defence more than poor victimised women /s

ThePigman · 2012-10-19T01:50:36+00:00

He was just a man, so who cares?

DragonAdept · 2012-10-19T07:09:18+00:00

"An analysis by a Deakin University criminologist, Kate Fitz-Gibbon, shows that only three of the 18 defendants who have successfully used the defence since 2005 were women."

dermanus · 2012-10-19T11:39:11+00:00

When I saw the headline I was all ready to defend the prostitute (Butler) but the provocation she's claiming is a real stretch. Unless Potter (the client) knew that she had been assaulted as a child it couldn't reasonably be called provocation.

Provocation requires intent and unless you can prove that the defense doesn't hold.

(note I am not a lawyer, especially not an Australian one and my comment is based on what I consider to be common-sense definitions and legal precedent)

From wikipedia it seems that proving provocation can only reduce your sentence to 'voluntary manslaughter' which is still more serious than the standard 'involuntary manslaughter'. It's a way of acknowledging unlawful acts, but with mitigating circumstances.

2012-10-20T00:43:49+00:00

Don't worry guys, the dude who got murdered deserved it because he said something.

Canadian4Paul · 2012-10-19T14:26:37+00:00

Ok, so according to the article:

Brendan Potter was into child sex, and fantasised about it while Butler performed sex acts in Rushcutters Bay Park, and later at her Potts Point apartment.

So, when Mr Potter conjured a detailed fantasy about performing sex acts on her younger sister, she snapped.

Did he actually try to entice her into getting this opportunity, or did he just openly muse and fantasize about them? I think that would make a big difference.

Furthermore:

Born to a 15-year-old, Butler's childhood was marked by sexual assault, frequent changes of address, few friends, drug dependency and violence. She was a prostitute by the age of 18 and a heroin addict by 25.

Implies she was at least 25. Does this mean her younger sister was an adult, or are there more than 7+ years of difference in age between them? Maybe the guy's fetish was sex with sisters, not underage girls?

MechPlasma · 2012-10-19T14:50:33+00:00

[...] has prompted the NSW government to reconsider whether provocation should be permitted as murder defence. A parliamentary inquiry is due to report on the issue next month.

Wait, someone makes a provocation defence that's complete bullcrap, so therefore they discuss whether provocation is even a defence? What the hell?

jimmybrite · 2012-10-19T16:41:48+00:00

She was a hooker right? She just wanted to hurt someone and needed any excuse, all she had to do was throw the man out, this is incredible.

Title	Prostitute proves provocation and is only convicted of manslaughter after murdering a client. what was accepted as provocation is ridiculous.
Author	ScottFree37
Upvotes	46
Comments	34
Date	October 19, 2012 12:58 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/11q0ch/prostitute_proves_provocation_and_is_only/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/prostitute-proves-provocation-and-is-only.1011014 https://theredarchive.com/post/1011014

Comments