On Passion's Potential to Undermine Rationality: A Reply

39 Pages Posted: 12 Jan 2010 Last revised: 13 May 2010

Reid Griffith Fontaine

Duke University

Date Written: November 6, 2009


This Rejoinder is the final Article in the 2009 Symposium on "The Nature, Structure, and Function of Heat of Passion/Provocation as a Criminal Defense," published by the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. In this Symposium, several criminal law theorists (Marcia Baron, Indiana U.-Bloomington; Gabriel J. Chin, U. Arizona; Stephen Morse, U. Pennsylvania; Samuel Pilsbury, Loyola-L.A.; Robert Weisberg, Stanford; Peter Westen; U. Michigan) contributed responses to my lead Article, "Adequate (Non)Provocation and Heat of Passion as Excuse not Justification," which may be downloaded at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1087862. In this Rejoinder, I comment on their observations and defend my lead article.

Keywords: Provocation, Heat of Passion, Manslaughter, Murder, Affirmative Defenses

Suggested Citation

Fontaine, Reid Griffith, On Passion's Potential to Undermine Rationality: A Reply (November 6, 2009). University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Vol. 43, p. 207, 2009; Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No 10-02. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1534680

Reid Griffith Fontaine (Contact Author)

Duke University ( email )

United States

Paper statistics

Abstract Views