代写论文：挑衅的概念
挑衅是在谋杀案件中通常被考虑的部分防卫。这是根据1900年《刑事罪行法》第23条(NSW)和普通法法案。当它在法庭上被证明时，可以减刑。在这个范例中，一个人不会被完全释放。陪审团将被指示无罪释放被告，并找出其他的过失杀人罪。在发现犯罪的情况下，该人的道德罪责将会减少。辛格的案件[2012]NSWSC 637可以用来理解那些挑衅的法律将被考虑的方式。在这一点上，被指控的辛格辩护说，他的妻子挑衅性的言论是他杀害她的原因。陪审团考虑了两种可能性。在法庭上认为，辛格失去自我控制是有道理的。辛格因过失杀人罪被判有罪，并被判谋杀罪。与此类似，弗兰克州的辩护是，在公众场合打他的行为已经让弗兰克想要伤害安德鲁。他可以陈述被煽动的极端情况。第二个因素是，弗兰克的律师必须让陪审团相信这个法案可以由一个普通人来完成。在这种情况下，辛格v R [2012] NSWSC 637的案例可以作为一个例子。
代写论文：挑衅的概念
《新修正案》有四个阶段的过程;他们的行为导致了人的死亡、行为的挑衅和受害者的行为，导致被控者以失去自我控制的方式行动，以及一个理性的人在这种情况下会失去自我控制。在R v Chhay (1994) 72 A Crim R 1的例子中，自我控制的丧失是由于恐惧、怨恨或愤怒。这些肯定是在杀人的时候提出的。行为必须煽动这些情绪。这句话的意思是:Van Den Hoek v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 158 at 167也可以作为一个参考点来解释挑衅的概念。自我控制的丧失甚至可以在很长一段时间后被触发。在这种情况下，相同年龄和成熟的普通人也可以采取不同的行动方式。这可以基于情境中的主观因素。斯汀埃尔诉女王(1990)171 CLR 312在327的案件表明，个人可以以一种不同的方式行动，这是基于普遍存在的事件的本质。然而，必须指出的是，被告的抑郁并不是考虑的唯一因素。Ziha vr [2013] NSWCCA 27在[78]的案例可以用来解释为特定案例所考虑的条款。在分析中，一般人的定义需要被考虑，他们的观点需要被分解。为了理解普通人的概念，需要探索普通人的定义。这已经在下面解释了。
代写论文：挑衅的概念
Provocation is the partial defense that is usually considered in the cases of murder. This is pursuant to the section 23 of Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and common law act. When it is proven in the courts there could be reduced sentence. In this paradigm, a person will not be completely acquitted. The jury will be given the directive to acquit the accused and find other cases for manslaughter. The moral culpability of the person would be reduced in the areas where the circumstances in which the offenses are found to occur. The case of Singh v R [2012] NSWSC 637 can be used to understand the ways in which the provocative laws will be considered. In this, the accused Singh defence was that his wife provocative words were the reason for him killing her. The jury considered two possibilities. It was deemed in the courts that Singh losing his self-control was justified. Singh was convicted for manslaughter and acquitted for murder. Similar to this, the defence that Frank states is that the act of hitting him in public had caused Frank to want to hurt Andrew. He could state the extreme cases of being instigated. The second factor is that Frank’s lawyer must convince the jury that this act could have been done by an ordinary person. The case of Singh v R [2012] NSWSC 637 can be used as an example in this case.
代写论文：挑衅的概念
The new amendment act has a four stage process; they are the conduct that has caused the death of the person, provocation of the conduct, and conduct of victim causing the accused to act in a manner of losing self-control and how a reasonable person would have lost self-control given the circumstances. In the case of R v Chhay (1994) 72 A Crim R 1, the loss of self-control was due to fear, resentment or anger. These must have been presented during the time of the killing. Conduct must have instigated these sentiments. The sense of: Van Den Hoek v The Queen (1986) 161 CLR 158 at 167 can also be used as a reference point to explain about the notions of provocation. The loss of self-control can even be triggered after a long period. In this, context of ordinary person of the same age and maturity can also act in different manner. This can be based on the subjective factors in the situation. The case of Stingel v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 312 at 327 shows that the individuals can act in a different manner based on the nature of events that pervade the particular situation. However, it must be noted that the accused depression is not the only factor that is taken into account. The case of Ziha v R [2013] NSWCCA 27 at [78] can be used to explain the clauses that are considered for the specific cases. In the analysis, the definition of ordinary person needs to be considered and their viewpoints need to be factored. The definition of the ordinary person needs to be probed in order to understand the concept of ordinary person. This has been explained in the following.
