Since the 1940s, people have sometimes used a legal criminal defense tactic where they claim that it was a “crime of passion.” They simply reacted in the heat of the moment. They did not think about what they were doing.
This could be used if someone has been charged with murder, for example. They claim that they came home and found their spouse actively having an affair, and they just reacted instinctively. The other person did lose their life in the encounter, but it was the perpetrator’s surprise that made them so upset, causing their actions. They say that anyone else would have done the same thing if they found their spouse in a similar position.
Doesn’t this mean admitting guilt?
The thing about saying something was a crime of passion is that the perpetrator also has to admit to the crime. They can’t claim that they reacted emotionally without also admitting that they did take the other person’s life. Why would they admit to this, rather than saying they were not guilty and forcing the court to prove that they were?
Often, the goal is just to change the sentencing. For something to qualify as the highest level of murder, it has to be premeditated. The person needs to have a “guilty mind.” They planned the event and intentionally killed the other person.
By using this defense, the perpetrator is saying that they were responsible for the event, but that it was never premeditated. They didn’t set out to commit murder, and they may claim they should only be charged with manslaughter – which carries a much lower sentence.
This is just one potential criminal defense tactic. Those facing charges must know all the options they have.