Talk:Gay panic defense

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)

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

---

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

• gay bashing victim 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 would guess that the very absence of a "Straight panic defence" of "Hetero panic defence" answers the question. Nick Cooper 07:28, 10 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)

If any queer propositions me, I'll kick their ass. End of story. No, something terrible and extreme like murder is never justifiable. But most guys are going to take a swing at a queer that comes on to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.130.104 (talk) 13:00, 10 March 2010 (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 decker^{talk 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)