So when i was watching (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvRcLdZMKMI&t=265s) from Ivorycello (formerly Mythrodak) I fors heard about law called Gay panic defence. Than i went to read [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense) about it. I just did not understand how can country claim it is most free country in world while people can kill gays and trans and get away with it. I know it is based on some disorder (witch is no longer recognised by the [DSM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders#DSM-1_(1952))) but, why was ban of this law denied in 21st century? Can someone explain all of this to me?
16 comments
It wasn’t a law. It’s a legal strategy, claiming that behavior by a gay or trans individual caused the attacker to panic and attack. Like a “crime of passion.”
It probably wouldn’t be very successful with juries today.
It was a legal strategy, not a law.
> I just did not understand how can country claim it is most free country in world while people can kill gays and trans and get away with it
This is not the “gotcha” you think it is.
It’s illegal and banned. Did you read that whole Wikipedia article?!?
Is this how most American criticism originates? From gross misunderstanding of American governance and jurisprudence?
It doesn’t seem like you actually did read the wiki about it.
1) Laws about things like this are handled at the state level, not the federal government level. This means there are 50+ different sets of state laws (have to include D.C. and US territories), and in some cases even more when counties or cities enact their own laws and ordinance about things.
2) The defense itself is not a “law”. It is unfortunately just a legal defense strategy lawyers have successfully used to defend their clients who are accused of attacking or killing someone. Some states have *passed* laws to ban this defense from being used in court, too. Unless a strategy is completely outlawed (like in this case, and I don’t even think it’s that common), lawyers can argue whatever they want to argue to try to convince the jury their client is not guilty.
A stupid example is the rich kid who drank and drive, killing four people. His lawyers argued he suffered from “affluenza” – he came from a rich, affluent family who never set any boundaries, so he didn’t learn right from wrong and society couldn’t reasonably judge him for what he did because of that. He wound up getting a ridiculously light sentence for what he did.
It’s not a law, it’s a legal defense. It exists because of homophobia.
It is a hate crime to kill somebody just because they are gay. It certainly doesn’t get you out of the murder charges. Please do more research into the US legal system
Gay panic defense is not and never was a law. It exploited ignorant juries to try to invent a psychological phenomenon that doesn’t exist. As the country evolved, people stopped buying it. Almost as if civilization is a work in progress and not a finished product.
The way our criminal law is structured gives everyone an opportunity to defend their actions or argue for their innocence. The law doesn’t require that this defense makes sense, but it is seen as a basic protection of the rights of the people for every person accused of a crime to have an opportunity to argue in their defense. As a part of that, every person accused of a crime has a right to have that case heard by a jury of randomly selected people. That way, instead of them getting railroaded by a justice system that has already decided, it is instead set up so that if they can convince a random group of people off the street of their innocence, they are treated as innocent.
The issue is that this means that in theory your defense can be literal gibberish and if it convinces the jury of your innocence, you will be innocent. The “Gay Panic” defense is one such defense that is sometimes tried. It is often considered a desperation move by the defense, but if they are lucky with the jury they get it can sometimes work. It is not a law and there are juries that won’t buy the argument and will convict anyway.
Sounds like a legal defense strategy not a law. I think it would be tough to convince Juries today using this strategy.
Ah, it’s time to be criticized by a foreigner who completely misinterpreted what they’re trying to criticize us for. It’s a day that ends in Y it seems.
Gay Panic is not a law. It is a defense strategy known as an affirmative defense. It means the accused admits to committing the act but is claiming gay panic as mitigating circumstances.
It is a terrible defense strategy that is often rejected by judges. Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard#Arrests_and_trial
Simple. If it were even a law (which it wasn’t) it’s been repealed.
And before making statements like this list your home country so we can research what a wonderful haven it is for any and all.
>I just did not understand how can country claim it is most free country in world
Can we stop with this. People by and large don’t say this. Maybe 30 years ago this was said in some circles but you’re not going to hear this sentiment from most people today.
Also, this is not a law but a legal defense strategy that never worked. Before asking such questions, at least get it correct for what you’re asking.
It’s a legal strategy. A sick one used by sick, sick people. It’s not a fucking law. At least get it right before you come here with a fucking “gotcha”.