Posted on 12/28/2017 4:58:41 PM PST by Olog-hai
Starting in January, Illinois will bar a rare criminal defense allowing the use of a victim’s sexual orientation as justification for violent crime, a ban gay rights advocates say they will attempt to replicate in about half a dozen states next year.
Defense attorneys will no longer be able to mount the so-called “gay panic defense” in Illinois, the second state after California to prohibit the tactic. It isn’t common, but one study shows it has surfaced in about half of all U.S. states and has been used with some success. Advocates say bans are necessary because crimes against gay and transgender people are on the rise, but some attorneys remain skeptical, calling the ban politically motivated and unnecessary because the old-fashioned defense wouldn’t hold up in court today.
After a lackluster attempt in 2016, the Illinois ban sailed through the Legislature in May with no opposition and Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner signed it into law without comment. Supporters called it a major victory for LGBTQ rights — especially as advocacy groups including the Human Rights Campaign report spikes in murders of transgender people — that could provide momentum for change elsewhere. […]
There are variations, but it generally goes like this: A person doesn’t realize someone is gay or transgender and engages in a flirtation, then discovers that person’s sexual orientation and that discovery triggers a passionate involuntary response such as murder.
Advocates point to the beating death of Islan Nettles, a transgender woman who died on a New York City street in 2013. James Dixon, who pleaded guilty and was sentenced last year, flirted with Nettles before realizing she was transgender. He punched her in the face and she fell and hit her head. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Thought Control full stop.
Grab my junk, I’m going to panic and defend myself. PERIOD...
How often is this even used?
>>Starting in January, Illinois will bar a rare criminal defense allowing the use of a victim’s sexual orientation as justification for violent crime, a ban gay rights advocates say they will attempt to replicate in about half a dozen states next year.
So when a “gay deceiver” comes onto a guy or gal under false pretense, it will be criminal to respond to the unwanted intrusion?
Both females and males have been wrongfully courted by members of the same sex (in disguise).
Some homosexuals court such encounters knowing that they risk getting beat up for it (rough trade). It’s a kink among some.
This is the start of justifying sexual harassment by homosexuals.
Defend yourself against their advances... be targeted as homophobic.
How about tougher laws prosecuting domestic abuse (and murder) among same sex couples?
They already solicit strangers for sexual favors in washrooms. Now you just have to “accept” their courting rituals and don’t dare report them to the management.
Huh? If you kill someone and it’s not..
a. An accident. Or...
b. Self defense. Then...
It’s either murder or some form of manslaughter. I don’t really have an issue with this. If a dude grabs another man’s junk w/o being invited then that’s a form of assault and may be grounds to rearrange some of his teeth. But it’s not a license to kill.
Rauner is a total disgrace.
It’s the matter of creating a law about it. There is no need for that; it’s legislating on “thoughtcrime”.
If one is guilty of murder, then don’t accept a defense that does not justify killing the other person. Don’t make a whole new law out of it.
Be sure that this “gay panic defense ban” will lead to criminalizing the physical rebuff of homosexual advances.
How can you even prohibit a defense attorney from saying this in court?
In the article, the guy punched the tranny, who fell and hit its head. There was apparently no intention to kill.
But if I was a juror in a case like I've just described I'd be at least somewhat sympathetic to the defendant regardless of how the judge instructed us jurors.That is because after a good bit of research I've become a *very* firm believer in "jury nullification".
At least I'd be sympathetic if the harm to the perv in question wasn't serious...I doubt that I'd be sympathetic if there was serious harm intentionally inflicted.
Rarely, because it's a really dumb tactic that would almost always backfire.
The two meth heads who murdered Matthew Shephard tried to use the defense before they had competent legal advice. The press picked up on it because it fit their narrative perfectly.
If you can have crimes of passion recognized you better allow crimes of utter revulsion.
Perhaps in Illinois but if it is appealed above that level there is a long history of precedence.
It is called Provocation, it is well documented and dates back to the 16th century.
Being sexually assaulted (queers call it “flirting”) absolutely fits the definition.
* * * * * * * *
Provocation (legal)
Provocation is a set of events that might be adequate to cause a reasonable person to lose self control, whereby a criminal act is less morally culpable than a premeditated act done out of pure malice (malice aforethought).[1][2] It “affects the quality of the actor’s state of mind as an indicator of moral blameworthiness”.[1] The provocation is said to “mitigate” the crime, and the crime is said to be committed in the heat of passion, under an irresistible urge incited by the provoking events, and without being entirely determined by reason
Provocation may be defined by statutory law, by common law, or some combination. It is a possible defense for the person provoked, or a possible offense by the person provoking. Provocation may be a defense by excuse or exculpation alleging a sudden or temporary loss of control (a permanent loss of control is in the realm of insanity) as a response to another’s provocative conduct sufficient to justify an acquittal, a mitigated sentence or a conviction for a lesser charge. Provocation can be a relevant factor in a court’s assessment of a defendant’s mens rea, intention, or state of mind, at the time of an act of which the defendant is accused.
much more at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provocation_(legal)
.
didn’t this happen on a talk show when a the producers thought it would be cute to show a straight male’s secret admirer was an alternative lifestyle degenerate?
It ended with a manslaughter.
I know a guy who got in trouble for punching a homosexual who grabbed his privates in a gay bar.
The police officer who detained him asked why he punched the guy. He explained, and the officer said “So what were you doing in that bar.”
He said he did not know it was a gay bar, and was from out of town, which he was.
I think they decided not to charge him.
It was in Sydney, Australia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.