The law prohibits using a victim’s sexuality or gender identity as justification for criminal action.

The law prohibits using a victim’s sexuality or gender identity as justification for criminal action.

Michigan has outlawed the so-called gay and trans panic defense, which allows criminal defense attorneys to use a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity as a defense argument.

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, signed House Bill 4718 into law Tuesday. The legislation states that an individual’s “actual or perceived sex, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation” is not admissible in a criminal trial to “demonstrate reasonable provocation,” “show that an act was committed in a heat of passion” or “support a defense of reduced mental capacity.”

In a statement shared on Tuesday, the governor’s office said the bill “significantly expands” protections for the LGBTQ community “by protecting them from violent acts of discrimination, prejudice, and hate crimes.”

  • ⓝⓞ🅞🅝🅔
    34•5 months ago

    I have to admit that I was confused by the meaning of this “panic defense”. The following from the article helped a bit.

    At the September hearing, Pohutsky said “the LGBTQ panic defense is often deployed as a component of other defenses to play on the unfortunate prejudices of some judges and juries in an effort to mitigate penalties for these crimes.”

    But a linked article made this “defense” tactic even more clear.

    Gay rights advocates are outraged after an Austin, Texas, man received a light sentence for stabbing his neighbor to death in what some are calling an example of the so-called gay panic defense.

    For decades, the rare defense has allowed a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity to justify violent crime in some cases. Now, advocates are saying it should be banned.

    I’m honestly surprised that this was ever admissable in the first place. Well, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

    This is good for the people of Michigan and the other 19 states that ban it. May all US states follow in kind.

      • @[email protected]
        6•5 months ago

        Interesting how you could change the label on this map to be literal anything good/bad and it would be accurate in almost all cases. Maybe both parties are not the same after all.

      • @kemsat
        4•5 months ago

        Not that it has anything to do with the topic at hand, but the map shows the Great Salt Lake!

    • @cybersandwich
      2•5 months ago

      Thanks for posting this but I’m not sure I understand it.

      What if it was a material part of the case? In the article linked, it wasn’t even “gay panic” as much as self defence that started from an unaccepted gay advance that turned into a fight.

      For example, what if two people went home from a bar preparing to hook up, then one discovered the other wasn’t the biological gender/sex they expected. It gets heated and they fight. The gay or trans person receives the worst of it. Police get called.

      Can you not include that as a part of the defense?

      Is that what they are calling gay/trans panic?

      This seems weird to me because in court you should be allowed to admit facts and evidence. If one of the parties was gay or trans, and that played a role in the event, it seems wrong to not allow it as it’s very relevant.

      I feel like I am missing some legal nuance.

      • ⓝⓞ🅞🅝🅔
        2•5 months ago

        I found the wiki article helpful. Perhaps you will as well.

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic_defense

        The gay panic defense or homosexual advance defence is a victim blaming strategy of legal defense, which refers to a situation in which a heterosexual individual charged with a violent crime against a homosexual (or bisexual) individual claims they lost control and reacted violently because of an unwanted sexual advance that was made upon them. A defendant will use available legal defenses against assault and murder, with the aim of seeking an acquittal, a mitigated sentence, or a conviction of a lesser offense. A defendant may allege to have found 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.

        This has no bearing on the admitted facts or evidence. The goal is to prevent the defense from basically saying, “They deserved it because they were gay/trans, and that surprised/scared me so much I acted violently.” It’s like saying you punched someone because they were wearing a different colored shirt. It’s not okay to hurt someone because of who they are.

        The law was passed to prevent victim blame and to make it clear that being gay/trans isnt scary. People are people. And violence isn’t okay, even if one’s bigotry causes them act irrationally.

        EDIT: Updated to simplify what I was trying to convey

    • @evasive_chimpanzee
      1•5 months ago

      Basically, from my understanding, the idea was that it wasn’t a defense in the sense of the person saying they were innocent. The defense was in claiming that an assult/murder was not premeditated, hence the “panic”.