The title and image would lead one to believe this is a sexy murder mystery drama series exploring the relationships, circumstances, and passions leading to 'crimes of passion', so I was hoping for something a bit more exciting and entertaining. But turns out it is a true crime documentary without any 'passion', 'sexy', 'mystery' or 'drama', other than a banal retelling of love relationships which lead to murder. Generally, I enjoy true crime documentaries, when I'm in the mood, and if the stories are well told. While it doesn't live up to the hype of the title & image used to attract viewers, it's okay as far as true crime documentaries go. But since nearly all crime, especially murder, is passion-based in some way or another, the focus seems too contrived and really does not go deep enough to justify the 'passion' theme.
I would probably have continued with the series, but only got as far as the second episode before I couldn't stomach any more, mostly because of the outcome of the featured case which essentially had the Supreme Court of Canada giving men permission to plot and carry out the murder of anyone who comes between them and their woman, using the 'excuse' of 'I was provoked', and even if the woman wants nothing to do with the man who won't let her go. If the man in this case was legitimately 'provoked' to murder his rival, then any person who commits murder should be able to use the same excuse and get off easy. This 'defense' was used in both of the first two episodes of the series. I understood and essentially agreed with it in the first case, when a husband and wife got into an argument, she hit him with a hockey stick, and then told him she was leaving him (and their disabled daughter who he had quit his job to stay home and take care of) to move into a new house with her lover, all of which was out-of-the-blue news to him. He snapped and killed her in the 'passion of the moment' without prior intent to do so, and with deep remorse afterwards. That 'Crime of Passion' and the 'provoked' defense I could understand. However, in the second episode a controlling, possessive, cheating husband loses his mind when he discovers his wife is having an affair and intends to leave him. He hounds her to come back to him and refuses to let her go. When he feels himself losing the battle to possess her, he plots her murder, and/or her lovers, by taking a loaded rifle to his final attempt to 'persuade her' to return. When he pulls the rifle out, her lover steps in to protect her, one thing leads to another and the lover is shot and killed. He should have been tried and convicted of first degree murder since he took a loaded rifle with him, pointed it, and shot it. Instead he was charged with 'second degree murder', I guess because they couldn't prove 'intent to murder', and was initially convicted, but the case was appealed to the Supreme Court using the defense argument that he was 'provoked' and the jury was not properly informed about this method of 'defense'. The conviction was overturned, he was retried, and ended up with less than 5 years using the 'I was provoked' 'defense' in his second trial. How anyone can successfully invoke such a defense when they take a loaded rifle to a confrontation and end up using it to kill someone is so far beyond my understanding and comprehension that I had no desire to watch any further episodes.