The defendant on the other hand is protected by some sections of the law in that several provisions have been included into the law which enables him to argue the case against him. There are so many defenses available to the defendants in every aspect of criminal justice. Therefore, is up to the defendants to analyze the case facing him and choose the best defense which is found in the law to argue and dismiss the case (Norie 2010. p. 1). There are so many cases where the defendants have successfully defended themselves and were acquitted. Thus, as the plaintiff struggle to gather evidence to come up with a valid case, the defendant should also find good defenses which can neutralize the case.

One of the common defenses that have existed in law is provocative defense. In the defense of provocation, an individual is not criminally responsible for an assault he has committed upon an individual which gives the person for provocation for the assault if the individuals is deprived of provocation power of self control (Morgan 2013. p. 123). In a situation where action or insult likely deprived an ordinary individual of the power of self control and induced this ordinary person to commit assault, then the accused would not held responsible for the act he committed.

In other words, an individual accused of committing a certain assault or even murder had a chance to defend himself against the case by proving to the jury that he was provoked by the plaintiff to commit the assault or murder (Norie 2010. p. 1). This defense has been in existence for almost a century until recently when most nations altered it. Some nations have done away with it while others like the UK, US and Australia have adjusted it (Clough 2010. p. 119). In English law, provocation was a defense used by the defendant claiming that they had a total loss of control as a response to another individual’s provocative behaviors which was enough to act the way they acted.