Jump to content

Talk:Gay panic defense/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Is it effective? (was: Start)

Nice article, Easter. Let me just suggest that the "punch line" -- that it has never been used successfully -- ought to come in the first paragraph. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper: you don't have to hold the readers' interest, just them know what they want as readily as possible. Then, point them to further reading.

My 2 cents.

Except that the punch line is wrong. The Gay Panic Defense is usually unsuccessful in winning acquitals, but it is QUITE successful at reducing culpability and punishments. The most famous case in which this occurred was the "Jenny Jones" case, where Scott Amedure was tried for the first-degree murder of Jonathan Schmitz and was instead found guilty of the lesser offense of second-degree murder. There are lots of cases where the perpetrators has used the Gay Panic Defense and been found guilty only of lesser included offenses and where judges have cited homosexual solicitation as a mitigating factor and given reduced sentences. If it NEVER succeeded, lawyers would give it up. Someone else 21:14 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC)
The attempt of the defense is to get a person aquitted of a crime due to temporary insanity because of the victim's sexual preference; that has never once in American judicial history occurred. And lawyers will never give something up if there is even the remotest possibility that it might succeed ;) But I will concede that it has succeeded in giving people lesser sentences. -EB-
Doesn't the content of the linked article, They asked for it, suggest that an acquittal has taken place in response to the GPD? --Planetthoughtful 17:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
"Go ahead! Plead the unwanted homosexual advance defence! Cos you're going to lose, and you're going to go to jail, where you will discover truly what an unwanted homosexual advance is!" - Maggie Cassella
Hm. Are you stereotyping convicts as gay? Or gay convicts as rapists? Or just using rhetoric to put down bogus excuses for murder? --Ed Poor
The second one I suspect. Although neither rape nor the concept of homosexuality in prison is actually funny, the stereotype of prisoners being gay is partially true. There is actually a syndrome, and no I don't remember who coined it or where to learn about it, where a temporarily chosen preference of sex with the same gender occurs. Where one actually learns to prefer sex with someone of the same gender when they are the only gender around. (Generally people who typical behaviour of the opposite gender are preferred.) But anyway, it's just a common joke; if you go to jail, you'll be on the recieving end of anal sex. -EB-
Sounds like homosexuality could be a sexual preference and not only a fixed sexual orientation. Are you conceding this, E.?
I am saying that you can choose to do whatever you want. I could choose to stop having sex with men and instead have sex with women. I could also choose to gouge out my eyeball with a carrot peeler. That doesn't make me a heterosexual, it makes me a person having heterosexual intercourse. See the distinction? P.S. - I never argued the fact one way or the other. I personally believe that anything I am completely oriented towards doing and have been since early childhood is a genetic issue; but I've no proof, and until I do I'm open to all concepts and ideas.

Nice try though, puttin' words in my mouth ;) -EB-

LOL, I gotta get you on my radio show. You can definitely hold your own. Well, have a nice weekend, everyone! --Ed Poor
The last radio show I did was The Christian and Vince Show. U can download it from my site, www.mp3.com/easterbradford/ - they were a little too gay, even for me. (Oh no, I'm a self-loathing homosexual!) But they said I was good copy ;) -EB-

Maggie Cassella is a comedian. Co-me-di-an. -- Montréalais

This Talk topic was titled "Start" which means nothing, so I changed the name of the topic to be reflective of the content. I came to this article to get an overview of this topic and one of my questions ("Is the defense effective?") is not addressed by this article and I feel it should be. I propose the following addition to the overview: "In US courts, the Gay Panic Defense is usually unsuccessful in winning acquitals, but it has been successful at reducing culpability and punishments. The most famous case in which this occurred was the "Jenny Jones" case, where Scott Amedure was tried for the first-degree murder of Jonathan Schmitz and was instead found guilty of the lesser offense of second-degree murder. Also, there are lots of cases where the perpetrator has used the Gay Panic Defense and been found guilty only of lesser offenses and cases where judges have cited homosexual solicitation as a mitigating factor and given reduced sentences." But I have no citations; although I copied the wording from Someone else, this is my conclusion after having skimmed the cases reported in this article. You could easily argue that this conclusion is therefore "original research" and prohibited but I'd counter that (1) the question is highly relevant, and so overrides the concern about original research, and (2) making every reader process all those cases to reach the same conclusion is obviously (literally) antithetical to the purpose of an encyclopedia. For these reasons, I feel it is important to include these conclusions over such objections. However, including unsourced information is equally clearly bad. Does anyone have a citation or suggestion? In the end, I decided to be bold and add the conclusion because the edit does cite a specific court case. Amead (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Joseph Biedermann

I've changed the Biederman section. While newspapers claimed he used a "gay panic" defense, his defense was, in fact, based on an account that featured him using self-defense to resist rape. I'm not sure the section even belongs here. I think people are being mislead by the media who are attempting to make the case more sensational than it was (hard to believe that would be possible, but there you go). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.53.180 (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually (re)removing it now. The article is on the defense. The section heading clearly states that it's for uses of the defense. However, the actual text makes it clear that the defense used was 'defending from attempted rape', which would never be described as a "straight panic defense" if the victim were a female.
Since the section is for cases where people have tried using the defense, and Biedermann didn't, it can't possibly stay. I see it was already removed with a request for a better source than an op-ed piece. I think the request was for a source actually supporting that he used that defense; not that the killing took place. (Philly Daily News is a perfectly fine source in general, but doesn't support the claim that it was a gay panic defense) Also, in the future, in order for a source to be verifiable, it should be, you know, easier to verify than having to hunt down the website, create a login, and find an article that's stored electronically under a different name.
Anyway, like I said, a 'gay panic' may have been the 'real' reason he killed him, but he did not use that as a defense, so it needs to go. 72.88.61.24 (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if it helps at all, but here's an example of why someone thought to include it and at the same time the reason why it shouldn't be included: [1]. It's not really news-news (just an nbc blurb, not terribly well-written), but it covers the prosecution's side and the defense's side sufficiently to see the claims on both sides:
Biedermann and Hauser were drunk and passed out. When Biedermann woke up, he claims that Hauser was threatening him with a blade and trying to assault him (this article says telling him to strip; others mention the attempted assault. Doesn't really matter either way). He says that, in order to defend himself, he struggled, got the blade, and stabbed Hauser (and stabbed him, and stabbed him some more).
Most articles point out that he was reluctant to talk to police (even though a sadly large number of female assault victims do the same thing). Most also hint that his defense was absurd (since this is the talk page, where I don't have to worry about neutrality: they're right. It was) All of the articles I've found have had those same basic points in common, as well as a mention of the "gay panic defense"; typically referring to this case as a 'variation' of the defense.
However, none of the sources ever state that Biedermann cited 'gay panic' as his motivation. As such, he didn't actually use the "gay panic defense". If it were to be included in this article, the closest we could say is that, "In 2008, Joseph Biedermann killed Terrance Hauser. During his 2009 trial, Biedermann claimed that Hauser had threatened him with a dagger and attempted to sexually assault him. Biedermann's defense was that, to stop the assault, he struggled with Hauser, and eventually stabbed him 61 times to death. Some news outlets covering the trial likened this claim of self defense to the gay panic defense."
That would at least make the entry match the facts, without making any false claims, but I still maintain that the fact that he never tried using the defense makes it inappropriate to include the event under a list of attempts at using the defense. 72.88.61.24 (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to add one more thing, but I noticed I still had one more tab open with an interesting source. This one is an op/ed (actually, a Chicago Tribune blog from one of their op/ed columnists), and it mentions that some see it as resembling the gay panic defense, but also includes this quote from the defense lawyer: "This verdict wasn't anti-gay, it was anti-rape". As questionable (i.e. shady, suspicious, unbelievable, etc) as their defense was, the official position of the defense was that it was defense from rape. Thus, there's no way it can be claimed that they used this (disturbing) defense. Okay, I shuts up fer real now. :) 72.88.61.24 (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


What are the "Southern countries"? I guess America south of the USA, i.e., Mexico etc.?

It says "southern counties". I think that it means that the defense is used in Benington County but not in Essex County, for example. :-) -- AdamRaizen
I question that it's even true when referring to the southern United States. The most prominent example was in Wyoming, and the only other one mentioned in this article was in California, neither of which are southern states. --Delirium 11:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The reference in this article to some fatuous remark made by an American actress is wholly inappropriate. Saradon talks about women being propositioned by men; this has got nothing to do with Gay Panic Defense which is by definition only relevant where an unwelcome gay sexual advance is made to a straight person.

User:MarcusVox

Was She talking about Gay panic defense when she made the remark? Beacause if she was, then the remark is appropriate imo.Theresa knott 09:17 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No, Saradon was talking about unwelcome sexual approaches from males towards women --- this has got nothing to do with GPD which is - in its essence - a defence based upon the "offensiveness" (to alleged GPD sufferers) of a *gay* sexual advance. That's the whole point of the thing!

In both cases we're talking about an unwelcome sexual advance. Exploding Boy 00:02, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Oh, good lord

From the article:

The defense is often criticized. The problem being that if the non-homosexual has the potential to become “temporarily insane” and commit violent acts then the person is surely a menace to society and has no right to be in it. If a diagnosis of insanity is true then the best course of action would undoubtedly be to incarcerate the person indefinitely. The reason why defendants who claim "gay panic defense" are not imprisoned on the grounds of insanity is because all parties know that the grounds for such a diagnosis are fantasy. The whole idea of "gay panic" is not a matter of psychological fact but instead a fictional condition made up by homophobes. The term also illustrates America's social backwardness.

I removed this; it seems like it was mostly POV commentary and interpretation. I do think that more criticism of the defense is needed, but this is just one editor's rant. "The term also illustrates America's social backwardness?" Ugh. Aquillion 01:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Excellent work. I agree with you on both points. Perhaps I can help with some more criticism.... -HunterKiller360

Agreed here. Though it could be rewritten and added back in, because it is heavily criticized in many circles, that was clearly an editor complaining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.225.145.188 (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

An English Viewpoint and a Change in Legality

Have added the (rather quaint) British term for the defence, as well as CPS advice describing the legality of the defence in British courts. I assume the same will be true in US courts, although a case or similar would be useful to prove.

Would suggest an analyis of this defence not as a defence that is proven in fact, but as rather as an option defence lawyers give to the jury to allow them to acquit someone who has (as the jury see it) broken the law for good or justifiable reasons; perhaps joining it to the insanity defence used in the trial of Harry K. Thaw (for those not familiar with it, the defene was in essence the guardmans, but with the cause of the sudden madness changed from a homosexual advance to the fact that the victim had been commiting adultury with the defendants wife). However, this would take someone with more legal knoweldge than i currently posses...

Matthew Shepard

If it wasn't "gay bashing", then what kind of bashing was it? Didn't the killers testify that they killed Shepard due to his sexual orientation? -Willmcw 08:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


What they testified to in court is of questionable value because they were trying to mount a defense. What they said in prison after they'd been convicted (and no longer had any motivation to lie), inherently has more probitive value. In fact, in the lawyer's parlance, it would be considered a "statement against interest" for them to admit that they'd just killed the kid for his money. In any case, the only person who really knows for sure why the murderers attacked him are the murderers themselves and they've said that they attacked him for his money. So we have to take them at their word unless there's evidence to the contrary. --SpinyNorman 03:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Their "word", under oath, was that they gay bashed him. That is plenty of evidence to for not believing as true something that they said later in a TV interview. It's fine to say that they recanted, but it would be wrong for us to judge the truthfulness of that recantation. -Willmcw 05:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
My understanding was that the judge barred the use of the "gay panic" defense. Is that not the case? --SpinyNorman 07:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I haven't seen a report that specifically covers it. If I understand it correctly, the defendants argued that "gay panic" was the reason they'd committed the crime. The judge rejected that motion to use that as a defense because even if they proved that Shepard had made a sexual advance at them, and that they'd panicked, that would not have been a sufficient excuse for killing a person. Therefore it would not be a valid defense strategy. It'd be like saying you killed someone because they smelled bad. It may be true, but it's not a defense. Valid legal defenses would be self-defense, insanity, etc. -Willmcw 09:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge with homosexual panic

I think homosexual panic should be merged into this article, and then this article should be moved to just plain Gay panic. I don't think the other article has enough meat to qualify it for a separate article to its own. Comments? --TreyHarris 18:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

NO! The so-called "gay panic" defence is rarely if ever based in the clinical diagnosis of Kempf's Disease, or "homosexual panic". Carolynparrishfan 20:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Question

Has there ever been a case of a homosexual using the reverse argument? If the condition is real and a heterosexual can be driven crazy or put uunder extreem stress at the thought of homosexual sex, than couldn't a homosexual be just as freaked out at the concept of heterosexual sex? I may be wrong but if there ever was a claim of this it would be an interesting inclusion. --Lophoole 21:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the absense of an analagously named defense really proves much one way or the other. I think the statement "No analogous defense pertaining to heterosexual encounters has been recorded" from the article could use a reference and perhaps further qualification on how closely "analagous" a defense would have to be to qualify.
Are there cases where a female defendant uses a man's unwanted sexual advances in her defence? I'm not particularly familiar with legal literature myself, but my guess is that there are many such cases. Some of these would probably bear more similarity to the "gay panic" defense than others (for example, those where violent acts are attributed to temporary insanity), but it may well be that none of them are as closely analagous as the scenario Lophoole proposes. Either way I think there are problems with "No analogous defense pertaining to heterosexual encounters has been recorded" as it stands (especially uncited). One solution would be to phrase it something like "LGBT groups have argued..." and add a citation.--Eloil 18:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that homophobes and homophobic behavior is extremely common for them. They have the same self-defense decisions as anyone else does. If a homophobe is being hostile and potentially violent, one can defend onesself. However, simply being hit on by a member of the opposite sex? No, sorry, it would happen far too often for it to be a credible defense. The prosecution would simply have to mention previous situations and show the defendant's behavior as a result. It's extremely unlikely, if not impossible, that a homosexual person has never had a person of the opposite sex hit on them. --Puellanivis (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of however the acceptance of the gay panic defence tactic by courts could perhaps one day lead to a "gay-panic-panic-defence" for gay men who beat homophobes to death who've threatened them *jokes* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.253.32.170 (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that largely the "gay-panic-defense" comes from a deep seated unease with homosexuality that America, and many other nations impress upon children. As such, a lesbian who is flirted from by a boy is not in an unusual situation but a frequently common one. Like such, gay men also receive a lot of attention from women that they don't want, but they're so accustomed to being treated as if they were heterosexual, that the defense really wouldn't likely stand up in court. Now, a person, who is being treatened with violence from a person who believes them to be gay, might be able to bring up a claim of "homophobe-panic-defense" where being confronted by someone who is obviously hostile towards homosexuals invokes a diminished capacity. In all cases, threat of rape is always a justification for homicide for self defense, no matter who what or anything is involved. --Puellanivis (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed a violent and discriminatory statement that was posted here by IP 214.13.130.104 on 13:00, 10 March 2010. If anyone has any questions or concerns regarding this action, the statement, or has had other issues with IP 214.13.130.104 you can view the page history to view the statement or contact me via my user talk page. Jaydubya93 (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI, IP 214.13.130.104 is part of subnet 214.0.0.0/8, which is directly assigned to the US Department of Defense. I provide the clarification here because from what I can find the same IP is used by multiple US military personnel, and I have seen multiple users of that IP reassigned alternate IPs in a very short period of time. In plain English, banning 214.13.130.104 would not prevent the specific US military employee who posted violent discriminatory text in this article from posting to Wikipedia again, and could in all likelihood cause technical problems for innocent users connecting from the same network (which is why I have not requested that action be taken). Further information and action is available should issues of this kind continue with this user - depending upon the nature of future posts it would be trivial to contact the network administrator responsible for that specific network, for example. Jaydubya93 (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sham Defense?

Would this be, like the Twinkie Defense, considered a sham defense in legal circles? Arbiteroftruth 19:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

relevant information reverted

I added what I believe to be relevant information about the Araujo case. This was not only a case of "gay panic," which is defined in this article as "claims that he or she was the object of romantic or sexual advances by the victim."

The killers in the Araujo case were not merely the object of romantic or sexual advances. They had been duped into sex with someone who was anatomically a male -- an act to which they would never have knowingly consented. (This is what I added to the article and was reverted by 76.185.76.79.) The murder was not just a reaction to simply being the object of advances, but a reaction to a horrific violation. In fact, what Araujo did to them meets the legal definition of rape in the state of California. I believe that this is a significant fact about the case that should be included in the article. Capedia (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Blame the victim much? I think it's fairly obvious that Araujo was the passive partner in the sexual relations she had with mutual consent. Rape is about power and her brutal murder makes it apparent she didn't have the power in those relationships, if ever. If you want to push the issue you need to start at the rape article to get the definition swayed to your POV. -- Banjeboi 12:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
IANAL, but it seems to me that if you don't want to have sex with someone who is anatomically male, then it is your responsibility to make sure that the people you choose to have sex with are not anatomically male. 24.5.193.228 (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Does the defense have anything to do with the psychiatric condition?

The article currently says "A defendant using the gay panic defense claims that he acted in a state of violent temporary insanity because of a little-known psychiatric condition called homosexual panic." I may be wrong, but I've never heard of anyone in any of these cases claiming that they had a little-known psychiatric condition; my (minimal) understanding of the gay panic defense is that it hinges on defendants claiming that going psycho and murdering someone is a normal/reasonable response to the situation they were in. (Side note: just to be clear, I consider that to be ridiculous argument. I'm just saying that that's the argument in these cases as I've heard it presented.) Other than that one sentence, this article doesn't mention any defendants claiming obscure psychiatric conditions. None of the linked-to articles say anything about such conditions. None of the online news articles given as sources in the linked-to articles say anything about such conditions. It's possible that non-online sources, or trial transcripts, would refer to a psychiatric condition, but that needs to be sourced if so. (Also note that the gay and trans panic defenses have been used in cases of multiple defendants -- see the Shepard and Araujo cases -- and it seems quite unlikely to me that in two separate cases, three friends would all just happen to have the same obscure psychiatric condition.) --Elysdir (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The psychiatric condition was used as part of the defense case for the killer Robert Lionel Hatt. His story makes a compelling argument against accepting homosexual panic as a legitimate defense for murder:
  • On Dec. 13, 1986, Hatt killed Douglas Moses, a retired Halifax schoolteacher. The 70-year-old man was found strangled in his apartment four days later. Hatt was charged with second-degree murder, but a jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity after a psychiatrist testified that the killing had been triggered by homosexual panic. As a result of that verdict, Hatt was sent to the forensic unit at the Nova Scotia Hospital in Dartmouth in 1988.
  • Three years later, he sexually assaulted a 13-year-old girl on the grounds of the hospital. He showed her pornographic pictures, had sex with her mother in front of the girl, performed oral sex on the girl and fondled her. He was sentenced in 1992 to two years less a day and spent 18 months in jail before being returned to the forensic unit.
  • In September 2004, while on conditional discharge from the East Coast Forensic Hospital in Dartmouth, Hatt committed a common assault on his wife. He was handed a suspended sentence and two years' probation.
  • He received his absolute discharge from the forensic hospital in January 2005. Fifteen months later, while still on probation for assaulting his wife, he attacked his building superintendent.
  • In April 2008, Hatt was sentenced to an indefinite term in prison.
Sources:
  • North Bay Nugget (Ontario), April 4, 2008, "Killer, child molester and wife beater named dangerous offender"
  • The Halifax Daily News (Nova Scotia), May 2, 2006, "Hatt accused of assaulting landlord"
—Ashleyvh (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The definition in the homosexual panic article contradicts the one given here in that it speaks of delusions and hallucinations accusing a person of various homosexual activities. The gay panic defense is about homosexual avances that the defense says have actually occurred. So again, are the defense and the psychiatric condition, as described in that article, even related?--87.162.47.180 (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the wording on the WP page for homosexual panic, the fact we have sources showing that an expert witness testified that a defendant suffered from homosexual panic at the time of a killing as part of his gay panic defense means that they are related.—Ashleyvh (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the following

"Judges often allow the defense only to establish the defendant's honest belief in an imminent sexual assault.[citation needed]."

I've removed this statement, but I'm leaving it here in the discussion in case it can be backed and cited. If restored, I'd suggest trying to avoid the word "often", it's weasel wordy.

Reasoning: I was unable to find a citation which discussed how often GPD was allowed with respect to different kinds of arguments for it. I did see references to it being linked to insanity and diminished capacity arguments. The citation-needed tag had remained for nine months. --Joe Decker (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Abolition of Provocation Defence?

As far as I know, New Zealand, Tasmania and Victoria (Australia) have removed the provocation defence from their criminal code or specified criminal acts or defences statutes. Are there any other jurisdictions that have done so? Calibanu (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)User Calibanu

Homosexual panic merge

I think that the Homosexual panic stub ought to get merged in here. it's not really a significant enough topic to stand on its own, at least psychologically speaking, and giving it its own article seems excessive. --Ludwigs2 16:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree on categorical grounds. The condition is not dependent on the legal defense (the opposite is true). If they were to be merged, it would have to be in the opposite direction. The core issue is that this article treats a legal concept, not a psychological one. Besides, the standing articles are enough to stand by themselves, since quantity is not correlated with significance (perhaps notability would be a better word here). Basically, shortness is not a mortal sin. On a less substantial note, I feel that people are more likely to contribute to short articles than small sections of other articles, so it might be better to leave the near-stub on its own, since it does provide a more or less complete overview of the subject. Tealwisp (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think they should merge for now and the lagel defense made an aspect of this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigifaq (talk • contribs) 02:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oppose merge, the term "gay panic defense" has separate notability based on in-depth coverage as evidenced by multiple reliable sources, and therefore is notable under the general notability guideline. "not significant enough" appears to reflect a question of notability, and notabilty is well-established under policy here. From a policy point of view, this doesn't appear to be even a close call. --j⚛e deckertalk to me 02:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm disgusted

Is this really a legal term? It's disgusting that people can get away with such a ridiculously stupid excuse for hate crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Symonds1990 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is a real defence that has been used in several trials. However, as you can see from the examples in the article, the defendants using it have not always succeeded; and where it has succeeded, the defendants have not 'got away with it', but simply been convicted of manslaughter instead of murder. Robofish (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
It's really quite bizarre too, that admitting to have committing a murder based on anti-gay bias can be a defense rather than simply a confession that it was a hate crime. 207.98.196.125 (talk) 09:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

History

I ran across a source that overviews history of the defense: Lee, Cynthia. "MASCULINITY ON TRIAL: GAY PANIC IN THE CRIMINAL COURTROOM." Sw. L. Rev. 42 (2013): 817-855. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Rape

The article seems to completely miss the issue. When a homosexual male uses cosmetic surgery to trick a heterosexual male into sexual activity under the false premise that he is female then it constitutes lack of consent. Sex without consent = rape. Many rape victims lash out at the person who raped them. Whether the law considers it rape or not the person often does. This does not mean that they are right in thinking that (I think hey are but that's irrelevant) but that' what it is about. This temporary insanity stuff is a load of bull. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.74.133 (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gay panic defense. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Gay and trans panic in the same article?

I don't think this is a good idea. It furthers the heteronormative idea that "trans" and "gay" are either the same or even similar affairs. Plus if you are going to put them in the same article, why can't the article be called "Trans panic"? It seems like "gay" is taking precedence here, which is not good. I personally feel there should be separate articles, or it should be called "queer panic" as a way of encompassing both types of panic. Or you could go a step further and call it "heteronormative panic," as the panic results from heteronormative beliefs and has nothing to do with gay or trans people. Jan sewi (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Jan sewi: while as an LGBT person I agree with you, Wikipedia does not exist to further social justice. This action is called the "gay panic defence", not the "queer panic defence" or "heteronormative panic defence". If there were significant numbers of sources using another name for it we would rename the article. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
"Further social justice," what are you even talking about? My point is that trans panic does not belong in the same article as gay panic, because factually speaking they are not the same thing. If you want to incorrectly put them together, then you can't call the article "gay panic," because the article, as it is currently written, is not just about gay panic. Jan sewi (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Also by assuming I am here to push an agenda, you are violating good faith principles. Jan sewi (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of the terminology, this article is certainly lacking in discussion of the trans panic defence. They are not the same defence (i.e. the gay panic defence typically relies on portraying a gay man as aggressive and invasive, while the trans panic defence almost always relies on painting a trans person as "deceptive"). Because they are different, I think separate articles make sense, and I think that using the commonly used terms "gay panic" and "trans panic" would be the clearest. And then we'd need to work really hard to make sure the trans panic article has much more content! Sandbergja (talk) 05:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The reason they're lumped together is that both of these odious "defenses" are based on claims of an uncontrollable temporary urge by the perpetrator. As such it's immaterial whether "gay" and "trans" are the same or similar, the issue is that murderers who use this defense claim to have the same "panic" reaction to gay and trans people. And the use of a "trans panic" defense came about as a direct result of previous killers having successfully used a "gay panic" defense to get reduced sentences. 207.98.196.125 (talk) 09:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
They are lumped together due to homophobia. Like the Homophobia article, the Transphobia article notes that transphobia falls under "homopobhia" or is often expressed in a way that is linked to homophobia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gay panic defense. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Another case to add

I don't know how to do it or would I presume to try I just thought it was relevant: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/04/texas-man-gets-probation-using-gay-panic-defense-explain-killing-neighbor/

Here's a washington post link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/04/27/a-former-cop-said-he-killed-a-man-in-a-gay-panic-an-actual-legal-defense-that-worked/?utm_term=.170823e04a40

Take care and thanks for your efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.184.6.213 (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Lead wording

Should the lead say this is an "attempted defense" or "a defense that is sometimes attempted [or employed]"? Since the article says that this defense has been successful in disproving murder charges (even if at the same time admitting guilt to a lesser offense) I don't think it characterizing it as an "attempted defense" is accurate. Whereas the latter phrasing works for either interpretation - that the offense has been successful or not. Opinions? —DIYeditor (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Late reply: Yeah, I saw that change by the IP, but I decided not to tackle the matter at that time. Your wording works for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
DIYeditor, regarding this and this, what wording do you suggest we use? I ask because "psychosis" is not it. See what the Psychosis article states. If a WP:Reliable source says "psychosis," then, yeah, it's something to consider. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
And I was planning to look over sources on this topic. But right now, I'm trying to get off Wikipedia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:13, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: I reverted because I didn't understand the logic. Psychopathy would not be a defense - one may be prosecuted for psychopathic acts. The insanity defense, or temporary insanity defense, is typically about psychosis or similar states. Then you changed what was supposed to be (according to your comment) "psychopathic" from "psychotic" to "irrational" - irrational is definitely not synonymous with psychopathic, but is somewhat analogous to psychotic, thereby not changing the meaning of the sentence much and not accomplishing the goal of correcting it to what the original editor was supposed to have meant to say. So I think the original editor did mean to use "psychotic" because it fits in the sentence while psychopathic does not. On the other hand, just from browsing insanity defense, is does not look like psychosis (or irrationality) is precisely the term used in the law in many cases (although each US state and each country has a different standard).
To generalize, from that article and my understanding, "The defendant argued that...":
  • they were highly psychotic, did not understand what was happening, and were therefore not culpable.
  • they could not tell right from wrong and therefore were not culpable.
  • they were under extreme emotional duress which made self control impossible and this should be considered as a mitigating circumstance.
  • they were diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and therefore were not culpable.
  • they are psychopathic and are therefore not culpable.
  • they were temporarily psychopathic which should be considered a mitigating circumstance.
  • they were temporarily insane and therefore not culpable.
  • they were of diminished capacity and this should be considered as a mitigating circumstance.
  • they reasonably believed they were defending themself and therefore not culpable.
A "gay panic defense" could be anything from provocation, self-defense, diminished capacity, to temporary insanity.[1] Not all of these involve irrationality or psychosis, and none involve personality disorders, which, as personality traits, are not defenses or even, to my knowledge, mitigating circumstances. So again I would assume the original editor did mean psychosis not psychopathy, because psychosis is partially correct but psychopathy 100% wrong.
I propose something like this for the sentence in question:
The defendant may allege to find the same-sex sexual advances so offensive or frightening that they were provoked into reacting, were acting in self-defense, were of diminished capacity, or were temporarily insane, and that this circumstance is exculpatory or mitigating.[1]
Sorry for repeating what you may already know quite well, this is as much for any other editors. I do not disagree with your word choice of "irrational" but I think we can be more specific and in line with the laws and RSs. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I never stated that "psychopathic" was meant. I stated "changing away from 'psychotic' until sourced. Used 'irrational' instead. Notice that 'psychotic' redirects to psychosis. So if [the editor] meant psychopathy, the term does not redirect to the latter." I also stated, "people often use 'psychotic' to mean psychopathy. We have the 'not to be confused' with note at the top of those articles for a reason. It's likelier that the editor who added 'psychotic' was referring to psychopathy or sociopathy than to psychosis. Most importantly, this is unsourced." I never stated that "irrational" is synonymous with psychopathic.
You stated, "one may be prosecuted for psychopathic acts." Well, when one commits a "psychopathic act," it is commonly thought of by the general public to have been a psychopathic state. They very much do see temporary insanity as a temporary state of psychopathy or sociopathy. Not as many people are aware of psychosis. My edit was all about what the editor might have been thinking when they added "psychotic" and the knowledge that "psychosis," which is what "psychotic" redirects to, does not seem to be right. I used "irrational" because the violent actions by people with "gay panic" are irrational and "gay panic" is not a medical condition.
Anyway, I'm fine with your suggested wording as long as it is reliably soured. And the source appears decent. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I have fit that sentence into the existing lead paragraph, and it is well cited that the defense includes the 4 separate types listed. If there are cases of a personality disorder being used as an insanity defense in the sense of proving innocence, I am not aware of that - they might well be mitigating circumstances at sentencing. Even if there are posited to be physiological causes behind some personality disorders, with adequate study there could probably be found physiological elements behind most criminal behavior, or all, since every human act has a physiological basis. The insanity defense in its simple and historical form, as I understand it, is meant for something more like psychosis and definitely not for sociopathy. Anyway this is probably a digression here or best fit for insanity defense. Thanks for working with me. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you distinguishing physiological causes. You seem to separating a physiological cause from a psychological cause. Psychopathy or sociopathy, which are considered the same thing in enough sources, is a psychological state, like all personality disorders, which are mental disorders. As noted in the Psychopathy article, "Different conceptions of psychopathy have been used throughout history that are only partly overlapping and may sometimes be contradictory." While there are very likely physiological causes for psychopathy or sociopathy, like the Psychopathy article notes, "Although no psychiatric or psychological organization has sanctioned a diagnosis titled 'psychopathy', assessments of psychopathic characteristics are widely used in criminal justice settings in some nations and may have important consequences for individuals. The study of psychopathy is an active field of research, and the term is also used by the general public, popular press, and in fictional portrayals. While the term is often employed in common usage along with 'crazy', 'insane', and 'mentally ill', there is a distinction between psychosis and psychopathy." The article also notes, "The DSM and International Classification of Diseases (ICD) subsequently introduced the diagnoses of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) and dissocial personality disorder (DPD) respectively, stating that these diagnoses have been referred to (or include what is referred to) as psychopathy or sociopathy. The creation of ASPD and DPD was driven by the fact that many of the classic traits of psychopathy were impossible to measure objectively." And the Psychosis article is clear that "Psychosis has many different causes. These include mental illness, such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, sleep deprivation, some medical conditions, certain medications, and drugs such as alcohol or cannabis."
But, yeah, since Wikipedia is not a forum, I don't see that we need to keep discussing this, although it's fine to try to understand what the other means. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Jordan Blair Woods; Brad Sears; Christy Mallory (September 2016). "Gay and Trans Panic Defense". The Williams Institute - UCLA School of Law.

Note to eager new editors, the defense cannot be "repealed" only banned or prohibited

I have had to correct 3 instances[2][3] of IP editors inserting "repeal" as they eagerly keep us up to date with the latest NEWS on the subject. This class of defenses cannot be repealed as it was never codified in law. It is a consequence of how the several defenses employed are usually worded in the law, not that they say "if a gay guy flirts with you, you aren't guilty". There is not any law like that to my knowledge. This is a pretty significant misconception and I can understand feeling an extra degree of indignation when operating under that impression. The way to term this is "banned" or "prohibited". —DIYeditor (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed split of Trans panic

Please note there is a section above Talk:Gay panic defense#Gay and trans panic in the same article? which includes discussion of this.

Wumbolo has proposed that Trans panic be split into its own article. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

Discussion

I don't have an opinion yet or any strong feelings. I think the most relevant questions are:

  • Does trans panic logically come under the same subject? (I'll note LGBTQ are often lumped together)
  • Do reliable secondary sources refer to them in the same context?
  • Is there enough content for a separate article on Trans panic?
  • Would a reader here expect to find a discussion of Trans panic?
  • Is this the correct title for an article that combines both topics?
  • Should the title of a new article be Trans panic, Trans panic defense, or something else, and is there RS support for such a label?

I would like to hear from the proponent of this split because I am not sure of their reasons and arguments. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

  • I agree with DIYeditor's questions/analysis. This source that DIYeditor used in the article discusses the aspects together. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: After this edit by an IP, I made this edit, which includes me making tweaks to the lead, removing the "proposed split" tag and unsourced material, and making other tweaks. This source the IP added further shows how the two (gay panic and trans panic) are intertwined. I definitely don't think it's best to have "trans panic" as a separate article. Although there is a lot more published on "gay panic defense," I could support this article being moved to "Gay and trans panic defense." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gay_panic_defense/Archive_1&oldid=1136753843"