7. Penalty
Some examples of the penalty of voluntary manslaughter crime in the United States of America are the followings. Voluntary Manslaughter in California is punishable by imprisonment for three, six, or eleven years. California Penal Code. tit. 9, § 192 and 193 (2005). In Pennsylvania, the voluntary manslaughterer is punishable by imprisonment for twenty years maximum. Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes. tit. 18, § 2503 and 1103 (2004). Imprisonment for fifteen years to life imprisonment is the punishment for Manslaughter in the First Degree in New York. New York Penal Code § 125.25 and 70 (2004).

The jury convicted defendant of voluntary manslaughter and the court sentenced defendant to state prison for the middle term of six years on the manslaughter count. People v. Rios, 23 Cal. 4th 450 (2000). Defendant was sentenced to a term of 4nprisonment of four to ten years in prison for voluntary manslaughter. Commonwealth v. Guest, 500 Pa. 393 (1983). It was not excessive to sentence defendant to prison term of twenty five years to life on his conviction of second degree murder given fact that . he fired six shots at unarmed victim who was running away from him, striking him three roes. People v. Figueroa, 640 N.Y.S.2d 50 (App.Div. 1996).

In Thailand, in case the defendant is convicted of either murder or manslaughter by provocation or under the extreme emotional disturbance, according to section 72 of the Penal Code of Thailand, the court may Impose a sentence below the standard range of such offenses to any extent.

The defendant is guilty of murder under extreme emotional disturbance according to section 288 and 72. Under section 288, the convicted defendant shall be punished with capital punishment, life imprisonment or imprisonment for fifteen to twenty years. Since the defendant acted under extreme emotional disturbance and had no criminal record as well as turned himself into the police, the defendant was found guilty of the crime committed but the imprisonment term of two years was suspended for a period of five years. (Supreme Court decision no. 249/1972). The defendant was charged with murder by provocation. Since the defendant acted under extreme emotional disturbance and his testimony was helpful to the proceeding, the final sentence was three years of imprisonment. (Supreme Court decision no. 550/1974).

8. Conclusion
There are some similarities and certain differences in the laws of the United States and Thailand coping with homicide by provocation or under extreme emotional  disturbance. In the US, provocation is a mitigating factor which reduces the crime of homicide to manslaughter. The punishment term will be within the imprisonment range of voluntary manslaughter. In Thailand, the provocation defense is available for any offense. The court may impose a sentence below the standard range of such offenses to any extent. Both countries regard extreme assault or battery upon the defendant, defendant's illegal arrest, injury or serious abuse of a close relative of the defendant, and sexual infidelity as circumstances which are sufficient to mitigate the crime of murder to manslaughter. However, provocation defense is not available for actors who get into a mutual combat in Thailand but it is permissible in the US. Although words alone are not deemed adequate provocation in the US, they do in Thailand. Only in the US court decisions is there a consideration whether homosexual advance is a sufficient provocation act. The reasonable person standard has been discussed at length in the US court decisions but there is no direct Thai Supreme Court decision elaborating the scope or definition of this requirement. Nonetheless, defendant's characteristics such as age, gender, physical disability, education and career will be taken into account in forming this standard in the US and Thailand. As regards cooling time, substantial lapse of time between the provocation and the act of killing void the provocation defense in both countries. Rekindling is also recognized in Thailand and some US courts. The defendants in both countries may assert that they act under extreme emotional disturbance against associated provokers and accidental victims, but not against the innocent non-provoking bystander. Defendants who elicit provocation may not use provocation defense in both countries. In Thailand, judges decide both a question of law and a question of fact. In the United States, the jury determines the sufficiency of provocation and the question of cooling time.

English Language
Joshua Dressler, Cases and Material on Criminal Law (West Publishing Co. 3d ed.2003).
Richard G. Singer & John Q. La Fond, Criminal Law: Examples and Explanation
(Aspen Law,& Busineps 2d ed. 2001).
Ronald N. Boyce, Donald A/Dripps & Rollin M. Perkins, Criminal Law and Procedure
(Found ion Press 9th ed. 2004).
Sanford H. Kadish & Stephen J. Schulhofer, Criminal Law and Its Processes
(Aspen Publishers 7th ed. 2001).

Thai Language
Jitti Tingsapat, Criminal Law I (Thai Bar Association ed., Krung Siam Printing Group Co., Ltd. 9th ed. 1993).
Kietkajorn Vachanasavati, Criminal Law I (Jirarat Limited Partnership Printing 8th ed. 2003).
Yood Sang-Uthai, Criminal Law I (Taweekiet Menakanit ed., Thammasat University Press 17th ed. 1997).