Prosecutors said Thursday they want to limit the use of "gay panic" defenses

[_BullDog_]

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Prosecutors said Thursday they want to limit the use of "gay panic" defenses -- where defendants claim their crimes were justified because of fear or anger over their victims' sexual orientation.
"The suggestion that criminal conduct is mitigated by bias or prejudice is inappropriate," said San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who organized a two-day national conference on the issue. "We can't outlaw it, but we can combat it."
Lawmakers in California and New York are considering bills to deter the common courtroom strategy of making a victim's sexual orientation central to a criminal defense.
Both measures would require judges to remind jurors that bias toward the victim cannot influence their deliberations.

Has anyone ever heard of a case where this was used? And how did it effect the case.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/07/21/gay.panic.ap/index.html

[Griffin]

Has anyone ever heard of a case where this was used? And how did it effect the case.Did that guy who killed the other guy after being on the Jenny Jones Show use that for a defense? I don't know how it turned out. And I'm sorry that I couldn't think of an answer that was more vague than this.

[SamTheEagle]

This is a stupid defense, but I've heard a lot of other stupid defenses, too.

[_BullDog_]

I think everyone agrees it is a stupid defense. But for the DA to come out and say something needs to be done about it, it would seem to be a fairly big problem. I was just wondering how common it was.

[Griffin]

I think everyone agrees it is a stupid defense. But for the DA to come out and say something needs to be done about it, it would seem to be a fairly big problem. I was just wondering how common it was.She's a DA in San Fransisco.

[SamTheEagle]

She's a DA in San Fransisco.

Yeah, is she up for election this year?

[BCK]

It was prompted by the murder of 17-year-old Gwen Araujo, a transgender teenager who was beaten and strangled in 2002 after two men with whom she'd had anal sex learned she was biologically male.
i personally cant imagine myself in a situation where a woman said it wasnt ok to have normal sex with her but it was ok for anal(suspect in itself), BUT i understand how you could have a negative reaction after you found out you just did a guy.

not saying its ok to murder, BUT i understand.

[SamTheEagle]

i personally cant imagine myself in a situation where a woman said it wasnt ok to have normal sex with her but it was ok for anal(suspect in itself), BUT i understand how you could have a negative reaction after you found out you just did a guy.

not saying its ok to murder, BUT i understand.

I've been under the impression that there is a growing trend for 17 year old girls to engage in either anal/oral sex so that they can either refer to themselves as virgins, or avoid pregnancy.

[Pseudolus]

I don't understand. What does two dudes having lunch on a blanket in the park have to do with legal defenses?

[SamTheEagle]

I don't understand. What does two dudes having lunch on a blanket in the park have to do with legal defenses?

Sorry man, but I think I'm going to have to slap a "weak" tag on this post.

[Pseudolus]

Reading your stuff's no panic either, buddy.

[_BullDog_]

i personally cant imagine myself in a situation where a woman said it wasnt ok to have normal sex with her but it was ok for anal(suspect in itself), BUT i understand how you could have a negative reaction after you found out you just did a guy.

not saying its ok to murder, BUT i understand.

That was a terrible case. So has that defense become more common or is it just becuase of that one case.

[SamTheEagle]

Reading your stuff's no panic either, buddy.

:lol: Redeemed!

[Y2Mozz]

i personally cant imagine myself in a situation where a woman said it wasnt ok to have normal sex with her but it was ok for anal(suspect in itself), BUT i understand how you could have a negative reaction after you found out you just did a guy.

not saying its ok to murder, BUT i understand.i have um....

I'll stop there.

[UNCORRELATED LAY]

Is this anything like the Chewbacca defense. I heard that one is being used often nowadays a little too often.

[atomic]

Folks, see the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic. That anyone could consider homosexuality a weapon that would require lethal force to defend against is utterly beyond any logic I can comprehend.

"Oh no! Someone's attacking me with his gay-beams! I must beat him senseless, tie him to a fence, and leave him there to die!" :roll:

[Loner]

I dunno - it seems to me one could accept the legal defense without implying it's at all reasonable to feel that way. Isn't that the definition of insanity?

I think people hear this term and think of things like honor killings, where execrable behavior is deemed not only not punishable, but proper. I believe a distinction can be drawn between these situations.

The DA is most likely simply trolling for votes.

[Uncle Carl]

How do you put it in a "girl"'s bum and not notice her twig and berries?

[Loner]

How do you put it in a "girl"'s bum and not notice her twig and berries?
They shrink considerably when on hormone therapy.

[E. Blackadder]

As long as some are accused of homophobia, they should be allowed to use "gay panic." It's only fair.

[atomic]

As long as some are accused of homophobia, they should be allowed to use "gay panic." It's only fair.

I don't follow your reasoning. How does the existence of homophobia furnish the legal foundation for such a defense? If someone is accused of homophobia, then they're allowed to say that they aren't legally culpable for a crime because they hate gays? That makes no sense whatsoever. It's like saying someone who doesn't believe black people should exist should be allowed to defend their actions by saying they believe in exterminating them.

"It's only fair" if gay people who kill straights for being straight were allowed to use a "straight panic" defense, but we don't see gangs of gay men going around beating straights up, do we? What utter absudity.

[Griffin]

If someone is accused of homophobia, then they're allowed to say that they aren't legally culpable for a crime because they hate gays?He's saying that as long as people are routinely accused of having an irrational fear of homosexuals, they should be allowed to use that defense in court.

[whisper]

He's saying that as long as people are routinely accused of having an irrational fear of homosexuals, they should be allowed to use that defense in court.

You could be called crazy as well, that doesn't mean you get to use the insanity defense in court.

[atomic]

He's saying that as long as people are routinely accused of having an irrational fear of homosexuals, they should be allowed to use that defense in court.

Still doesn't make sense to me, sorry. I really don't follow the logic at all. Spell it out exactly--what is the reasoning for that statement?

[E. Blackadder]

"It's only fair" if gay people who kill straights for being straight were allowed to use a "straight panic" defense, but we don't see gangs of gay men going around beating straights up, do we?Do you really want to go there? :popcorn:

I suggest you retract your earlier post before you discover the mental precipice you are dancing on.

[Griffin]

You could be called crazy as well, that doesn't mean you get to use the insanity defense in court.Not automatically, no. But you'll be the first one I put on the witness list to support my crazy claim. Thanks!

[Griffin]

Still doesn't make sense to me, sorry. I really don't follow the logic at all. Spell it out exactly--what is the reasoning for that statement?If you want to deny someone the possibility of saying he or she has an irrational fear as a defense by saying it doesn't exist, maybe you could start by limiting how often you accuse people of having that irrational fear.

[atomic]

If you want to deny someone the possibility of saying he or she has an irrational fear as a defense by saying it doesn't exist, maybe you could start by limiting how often you accuse people of having that irrational fear.

That is not what disallowing gay panic as a legal defense is about. Disallowing it as a legal argument is not to say it doesn't exist--it is saying that it doesn't satisfy the legal burden of a legitimate defense. Again, if somebody has an irrational fear of, say, Asians, then can they claim that they were driven to kill because they feared/hated someone else's ethnicity? We've seen racially-motivated killings in this country. We've even had courts tacitly allowing these killings in the good 'ole days of the KKK. Do we, today, disallow defendants to claim racial bias as a defense for murder because we don't believe racial hatred exists? No, we disallow it because it doesn't satisfy any legal standard for justification of murder.

[Griffin]

Again, if somebody has an irrational fear of, say, Asians, then can they claim that they were driven to kill because they feared/hated someone else's ethnicity?I wasn't aware that people are routinely accused of having an irrational fear of Asians everytime they say something critical of Asians.

[Malik Shabazz]

Has anyone ever heard of a case where this was used? And how did it effect the case.It's used very often when straight men beat or kill M-to-F transgender people, particularly if the straight man has picked up and/or had sex with the TG individual.

It's also used sometimes when straight men beat gay men. "I beat the crap out of him because he came on to me."

[Griffin]

How often does it work?

[Malik Shabazz]

How often does it work?I don't know how often the defense is used in a courtroom or how often it's successful there, but it's particularly effective at keeping people out of court.

In the first place, police officers often are sympathetic to such a "defense" and choose not to make an arrest. An assault may become a fight, or a murder may become self-defense against a robbery or a physical threat.

Then a prosecutor may not press charges, or might accept a plea bargain, out of fear that a jury might be sympathetic to such a "defense."

This is especially true in cases involving transgender individuals, although it also applies in gay-bashing incidents in some areas.

[Griffin]

So prosecutors and police officers aren't doing their jobs. Even if a particular defense is distasteful, wouldn't it ultimately be better to defeat it in the courtroom?

[dinosaur]

As long as some are accused of homophobia, they should be allowed to use "gay panic." It's only fair.

Can I use "Christian Panic" as a defense if I'm phobic about them?

[Griffin]

Can I use "Christian Panic" as a defense if I'm phobic about them?I don't think it should be disallowed.