The Homosexual / trans panic defenses- do they hold any validity?

[obZen]

Homosexual Panic is:

... a term defined by psychiatrist Edward J. Kempf as "panic due to the pressure of uncontrollable perverse sexual cravings". The disorder was coined in 1920, and has also come to be known in the psychiatrist's honor as "Kempf's disease". He classified the disorder as an acute pernicious dissociative disorder. This meant that the condition involved in a disruption in typical perception and memory functions of an individual.

Trans panic / trans panic defense are the trans equivalents.

This state of mind is often used as a legal defense to justify the murder of a homosexual.
In the United States, California was the first state to ban the gay-panic defense. This was the result of the APA's scientific stance that homosexuality and transexuality are not mental illnesses, and increasing political pressure to do something about justifying murder. New Jersey wants to follow suit.
California also banned the trans-panic defense.

This came back to light after Marco McMillian, one of Jackson, Mississippi's mayoral candidates, was ruled dead due to asphyxiation. His death's etiology apparently could not be determined.
His sexual identity raised question of motive (was this murder?), and was magnified because Mississippi's law outlines hate crimes in the scope of race, but not in sexuality.

The murder of Gwen Araujo raised questions about the trans-panic defense.

This begs the question: does this defense have any scientific validity? Should this even be usable in court?
What is your take on the -panic defense?

To me, justifying murder is a touchy subject. Unless you're physically forced to do so, or are in a state of self-defense, then murder is not justified.
One's sexual insecurity does not, in my mind, justify murder. 1509 trans people have been murdered during the past 6 or so years. The APA has outlined reasons why homosexuality and transgenderism are not mental illnesses.
I am completely shocked that it has not been deemed illegal in more states, but it appears that it is just a matter of time.

 

[Kanzler]

There are two separate issues which I think you are conflating here:

1) Homosexual panic is "panic due to the pressure of uncontrollable perverse sexual cravings".

2) Gay panic defense is when you kill somebody who you think is gay and justify it by saying they were gay and that really scared me.

You can have 1) by itself, 2) by itself, or 1) and 2) together: I am experiencing panic due to the pressure of uncontrollable perverse sexual cravings and am also frightened by this gay person in front of me and killed him.

Needless to say both ideas are ridiculous. Gay/trans panic defense isn't a real "defense" or mitigating factor, it's just what a lot of people tried to use to justify a murder lol. You don't need to ban it to have a judge think you're a fucknut for trying to justify a murder like so. But I guess it's banned just so the court doesn't have to deal with it in the first place.

As for homosexual panic, I think it's just a pointless term used to describe people when they're really really horny.

 

[Her]

I don't think I need to go into detail about why the gay panic/trans panic defense is a crock of apologist bullshit.

 

[MCMXCIX]

When I become a lawyer in 8 or ten years o so, I hope I don't have to face this Defense. O no wait, I don't I live in California!

 

[Kristoph]

This is the equivalent to rapists saying that their victim was "too sexy" and other similar confession defenses in which you say you didn't have any other choice but to murder for no reason.

Well guess what: you did have a choice. Rot in jail.

 

[Tek]

Cruel impulses and desires are natural and acceptable, acting upon them is not. That's part of becoming civilized.

It's not impossible that the sight or thought of a gay person could trigger an uncontrollable adrenal response. But I don't think that's very likely, and such a thing could easily be tested for and ruled out.

I think it's much more likely that people who commit such crimes do so because gay people represent their own worst fear: a desire within themselves, however small, to explore the love of another person of the same sex. They must crush this feeling, which they cannot accept that they even own, and the result is intense homophobia and even violence.

There's even some research to support this idea. Note that while perfectly safe for work, this article is PG -13 due to the subject matter. https://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/...106/homophobic-men-most-aroused-gay-male-porn

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

How is this any different from people losing control of their sexual tendencies?

 

[lloebet]

Lets note that this was set up in the 1920's where for a time drinking alcohol was looked at as a narcotic drug.
It's just like the second amendment, outdated with the changes of society's moral standard.

 

[Kanzler]

The first amendment protecting the freedom of speech, exercise of religion, of the press as well as the right to assemble? I think you might mean the second amendment.

 

[lloebet]

Yes I do. Thanks for fixing me there, never could get all of those down in school. Edited.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Lets note that this was set up in the 1920's where for a time drinking alcohol was looked at as a narcotic drug.
It's just like the second amendment, outdated with the changes of society's moral standard.

The second amendment may appear outdated but it serves an important purpose that I think is often forgotten about here - because the common people have the right to bear arms, they cannot be taken down by militarized individuals. A lot of American culture is also built around hunting and shooting for sport - most people who own guns own them for these two purposes, and for the third who owns them for self defense, collection or show, they rarely ever leave the house.

A far more irrelevant amendment is the 3rd, or if you wanna be funny, the 18th is completely irrelevant.

This resembles the "insanity defense" far more than any of the amendments.

The third amendment isn't useless.. Don't forget that it outlaws soldiers having to be housed in private property during peacetime. However it is acceptable say if the U.S. was invaded by enemies and the soldiers can take shelter in private property.

It's not useless, I said "irrelevant". Also, in comparison to most, the 3rd amendment is pretty irrelevant since most wars are not going to be fought on American soil, due to the geography.

 

[MCMXCIX]

The second amendment may appear outdated but it serves an important purpose that I think is often forgotten about here - because the common people have the right to bear arms, they cannot be taken down by militarized individuals. A lot of American culture is also built around hunting and shooting for sport - most people who own guns own them for these two purposes, and for the third who owns them for self defense, collection or show, they rarely ever leave the house.

A far more irrelevant amendment is the 3rd, or if you wanna be funny, the 18th is completely irrelevant.

This resembles the "insanity defense" far more than any of the amendments.

The third amendment isn't useless.. Don't forget that it outlaws soldiers having to be housed in private property during peacetime. However it is acceptable say if the U.S. was invaded by enemies and the soldiers can take shelter in private property.

 

[twocows]

Touching on two things.

1. No it's not a valid defense. I don't think even most conservatives would consider that a valid defense.

2. I'm generally opposed to hate crime legislation. All violent crimes are hate crimes. Killing someone because they're black isn't somehow more reprehensible than killing someone because they stole your sweet roll. Likewise, there's no reason why it should carry a different punishment. I don't think the solution to the question you brought up in the original post is to legislate more things as hate crimes, I think it's to do away with hate crime legislation entirely.

 

[Sir Codin]

The only US Constitution amendments that are bullshit or outdated are the 18th (thankfully repealed by the 21st) and maybe the 16th.

Everything else is good. Do not fuck with any others besides those and you won't have to kiss my fist.

 

[Kanzler]

Touching on two things.

1. No it's not a valid defense. I don't think even most conservatives would consider that a valid defense.

2. I'm generally opposed to hate crime legislation. All violent crimes are hate crimes. Killing someone because they're black isn't somehow more reprehensible than killing someone because they stole your sweet roll. Likewise, there's no reason why it should carry a different punishment. I don't think the solution to the question you brought up in the original post is to legislate more things as hate crimes, I think it's to do away with hate crime legislation entirely.

It's not even that you shouldn't legislate against this defense, it's that you shouldn't even have to. Judges are supposed to have, well, good judgement and can see through these things. Although, banning the defence does have utility because it means the court can avoid having to deal with hours of hoops that lawyers might want to jump through in their attempt to prove innocence. Doesn't mean much in the long run but why not.

 

[Gardevoir the Dragon Slayer]

Touching on two things.

1. No it's not a valid defense. I don't think even most conservatives would consider that a valid defense.

2. I'm generally opposed to hate crime legislation. All violent crimes are hate crimes. Killing someone because they're black isn't somehow more reprehensible than killing someone because they stole your sweet roll. Likewise, there's no reason why it should carry a different punishment. I don't think the solution to the question you brought up in the original post is to legislate more things as hate crimes, I think it's to do away with hate crime legislation entirely.

This, Hate crime legislation can effectively give off the idea that some people are in effect getting special treatment in the eyes of the law, and may course resentment towards them from other groups.

 

[MCMXCIX]

The second amendment may appear outdated but it serves an important purpose that I think is often forgotten about here - because the common people have the right to bear arms, they cannot be taken down by militarized individuals. A lot of American culture is also built around hunting and shooting for sport - most people who own guns own them for these two purposes, and for the third who owns them for self defense, collection or show, they rarely ever leave the house.

A far more irrelevant amendment is the 3rd, or if you wanna be funny, the 18th is completely irrelevant.

This resembles the "insanity defense" far more than any of the amendments.



It's not useless, I said "irrelevant". Also, in comparison to most, the 3rd amendment is pretty irrelevant since most wars are not going to be fought on American soil, due to the geography.

FINE let me rephrase the word useless, No the law isn't irrelevant because In peacetime we don't have to house soldiers just because theirs no where to put them. If it wasn't there, some of us would probably have soldiers stinking up our bathrooms right now. And Invasion is possible, especially in U.S territories and protectorates. And while it's unlikely, Invasion Is definitely possible.

 

[Livewire]

If you want to debate the amendments, make another thread please. This is getting pretty off-topic.