Staaten, die die „Gay Panic Defense“ verboten (grün) und nicht verboten (gelb) haben
Von AlexCoraBaldFraud
Staaten, die die „Gay Panic Defense“ verboten (grün) und nicht verboten (gelb) haben
Von AlexCoraBaldFraud
12 Kommentare
[„The gay panic defense or homosexual advance defense is a victim blaming strategy of legal defense, where a heterosexual individual charged with a violent crime against a same-sex attracted individual claims they lost control and reacted violently because of an unwanted sexual advance that was made upon them.“](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_and_trans_panic_defense#United_States)
*suspiciously massachusetts shapes hole in the northeast*
I’m genuinely flabbergasted learning this actually exist.
Massachusetts doesn’t even bother to outlaw it—the state is so progressive that such a defense wouldn’t fly in front of a jury of twelve anyway
Important context to note, allowing a defense lawyer to use a strategy doesn’t mean it’s an effective one. There are a million different dumb strategies defense attorneys can and do use that are horrible ideas.
FFS, even Begbie in **Trainspotting** was man enough to get out of physical contact, back off and kick inanimate objects instead of the other person. And he was full on top, hand up the skirt before discovering. This isn’t a defense, it’s an excuse for violence. Certain populations will attempt to use a shield as a weapon. It’s easier to claim victimhood than to stand up and admit you hate people.
jeez you’d think wyoming would have been shamed into passing it after matthew shephard.
How does this work? Do defense attorneys actually counsel their clients that they can get acquitted by arguing „Yes I killed that man but you see I found out he was gay and they made me very mad“?
Perhaps they should also bar the „Phineas Priest/Priesthood“ defence, often used by homophobic religious zealots to excuse homophobic murder or mayhem by claiming such is a Religious Sacrament. Wikipedia explaineth the name’s origins:
>The Phineas Priesthood is named after the Israelite [Phineas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phinehas,_son_of_Eleazar), grandson of [Aaron](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron) ([Numbers 25:7](https://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Numbers%2025:7&version=nrsv)). According to Numbers 25, Phineas personally executed an [Israelite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelite) man and a [Midianite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midianite) woman while they were together in the man’s tent, ending a plague which had been sent by God in order to punish the Israelites for intermingling both sexually and religiously with [Baal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal)-worshipers. Phineas is commended for having stopped Israel’s fall into [idolatrous](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idolatry) practices that were introduced to it by [Moabite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moab) women. God commends Phineas as zealous through [Moses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses), gives him a „covenant of peace,“ and grants him and „his seed“ an everlasting priesthood. This passage was cited in Hoskins’s book as a justification for using violent means against people who have interracial relationships and practice other forms of alleged [immorality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immorality).
I really don’t understand the purpose of this law or the defense either. Does not banning it allow it to be legitimately used and applied by a jury? Like are people legitimately getting out of assault or murder charges by saying “He came on to me and I killed him in gay panic, but it was only temporary. I’m actually totally sane.”? That sounds unbelievable. I guess I’m not understanding the real world application of this defense or the need for the law.
Green?
I think every state should be yellow.
Before you start downvoting and name calling… I also think that a lawyer should be able to attempt to use *any* defense they want, no matter how ridiculous it is (including this one, which is a ridiculous as they come).
Just because you use something as a defence, doesn’t mean the courts have to entertain the idea. Which is my point.