"gay Panic" Defense Outlawed In California

[Dogmaphobe]

Wow, so a little kid who kicks a queer in the shin and runs away from the sodomite pedophile's advances, can end up in court with an assault rap and a sentence to juvie? This is why the Islamic expedient to all matters homosexual looks more attractive to me by the minute.

I hear the Pashtun region is very nice this time of year.

 

[mdk]

I am not too wild about any state banning what type of defense can used by a defendant. This seems like a pretty frightening overreach by the state.

 

[ogibillm]

To call it banned seems a bit strange. Basically they're saying it's an invalid defense, like ignorance. You aren't banned from claiming you were ignorant of the law, but that ignorance is not a valid defense, just like gay panic isn't valid

 

[BlackFlag]

Gay panic is banned? Does that mean republicans have to leave the country?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Always seemed like a really specious defense to me. Did they panic because they were leaning towards accepting an advance?

Gay panic is bullshit. It's something held over from back when homosexuality was illegal.

 

[R.D.]

Overreach to appease certain groups.

Is it Successful?
There is no serious psychological evidence to support the condition, and many courts have refused to allow defendants to present evidence of gay panic. Even when evidence of gay or trans panic is presented, juries often reject such evidence and convict the defendant.

In 2013, the American Bar Association passed a resolution urging state lawmakers to ban the defense. However, some legal scholars have argued that courts, even as they prohibit defendants from explicitly relying on the defense, are doing a poor job of calling-out jurors’ and attorneys’ reliance on stereotypes about gay and transgender people. Under this theory, defendants should be allowed to openly assert the gay panic defense, rather than implicitly relying on stereotypes about gay men as sexual predators.

 

[whitehall]

How can a state government outlaw a specific defense in a murder case? First they attack parts of the 1st Amendment and then they undermine the 2nd Amendment and now they are going after the 6th Amendment. Pretty soon there won't be a Bill of Rights if the radical left has their way.

 

[BlackFlag]

How can a state government outlaw a specific defense in a murder case? First they attack parts of the 1st Amendment and then they undermine the 2nd Amendment and now they are going after the 6th Amendment. Pretty soon there won't be a Bill of Rights if the radical left has their way.

Are you scared of gay people?

Well then my advice... don't murder anyone

 

[whitehall]

How can a state government outlaw a specific defense in a murder case? First they attack parts of the 1st Amendment and then they undermine the 2nd Amendment and now they are going after the 6th Amendment. Pretty soon there won't be a Bill of Rights if the radical left has their way.

Are you scared of gay people?

Well then my advice... don't murder anyone

Brilliant analysis. You should be a Harvard Law professor.

 

[BlackFlag]

How can a state government outlaw a specific defense in a murder case? First they attack parts of the 1st Amendment and then they undermine the 2nd Amendment and now they are going after the 6th Amendment. Pretty soon there won't be a Bill of Rights if the radical left has their way.

Are you scared of gay people?

Well then my advice... don't murder anyone

Brilliant analysis. You should be a Harvard Law professor.

Well since that advice is coming from a bed-wetter who believes in the "gay panic" defense I'll go ahead and dismiss it

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I think outlawing any defense should be inherently unconstitutional. In this case, if you are required to tell the truth and the truth is that you panicked in the encounter with a gay person, then you are basically being denied your right to defend yourself honestly.

Then what's to stop someone from claiming "black panic" or "white panic"? Whatever the stated cause for the action, it must be reasonable. It's not logical to allow it over a mere advance or a woman could shoot a guy as a date turn down, just because the request panicked her.

Isn't that for the jury to decide?

 

[whitehall]

How can the state outlaw a specific defense for murder? We are sinking further and further into a politically correct quagmire that liberals created. Orwell would be proud.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think outlawing any defense should be inherently unconstitutional. In this case, if you are required to tell the truth and the truth is that you panicked in the encounter with a gay person, then you are basically being denied your right to defend yourself honestly.

Then what's to stop someone from claiming "black panic" or "white panic"? Whatever the stated cause for the action, it must be reasonable. It's not logical to allow it over a mere advance or a woman could shoot a guy as a date turn down, just because the request panicked her.

Isn't that for the jury to decide?

Isn't that a fact guided by the law on or about "gay panic" as a defense or not?

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is for the legislature to decide.

There is no constitutions guarantee of any defense a person wants to provide.

However, never say never ever, because would killing a slaver who is trying to capture you defensible. I would think so.

 

[whitehall]

The jury can accept or decline the "gay panic" defense. Why would a state government get involved? Next thing you know the people's republik of California might outlaw "self defense" as a legal concept.

 

[konradv]

I think outlawing any defense should be inherently unconstitutional. In this case, if you are required to tell the truth and the truth is that you panicked in the encounter with a gay person, then you are basically being denied your right to defend yourself honestly.

Then what's to stop someone from claiming "black panic" or "white panic"? Whatever the stated cause for the action, it must be reasonable. It's not logical to allow it over a mere advance or a woman could shoot a guy as a date turn down, just because the request panicked her.

Isn't that for the jury to decide?

The jury decides guilt or innocence. It's the judge that decides what's proper about the way the trial is conducted.

 

[MaryL]

I think outlawing any defense should be inherently unconstitutional. In this case, if you are required to tell the truth and the truth is that you panicked in the encounter with a gay person, then you are basically being denied your right to defend yourself honestly.

Then what's to stop someone from claiming "black panic" or "white panic"? Whatever the stated cause for the action, it must be reasonable. It's not logical to allow it over a mere advance or a woman could shoot a guy as a date turn down, just because the request panicked her.

If it is the truth, then black panic and white panic and dwarfism panic and any other type of panic should be allowed to be argued.

I'm afraid that's just ridiculous. Panic isn't a justification for anything. It's a personal failing that shouldn't get you leniency.

Panic attacks aren't real? Damn, I just paid a shrink and got drugs for nothing? What is next, rape is just imaginary?

 

[Manonthestreet]

Just out of curiosity how many times was it used if at all???

 

[Manonthestreet]

Matthew Shepherd bs again........Have We Got Matthew Shepard All Wrong Advocate.com
Have We Got Matthew Shepard All Wrong?
A new book argues that America’s most notorious hate crime was not a hate crime at all.

 

[Katzndogz]

Instead of gay panic, call it what it is, harassment by gays has just been legalized.