Guest Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 If it's an offensive term, I apologize. But someone who is going to commit a crime based on sexual orientation is way more likely to do so to someone who is sexually active as opposed to just getting a little chub from watching guys in tight pants jump on each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeygirl Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Really? Your data that backs that thought? Not being snotty-I just think it's the opposite and don't know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 No real data, just the experience of friends. It's only been openly gay, sexually active men that I've known who have been victims of any physical violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeygirl Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 'bout how many? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pong Messiah Posted October 7, 2014 Author Share Posted October 7, 2014 I'd say 5, maybe 6 thousand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Mathison Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 CM, it appears the site, www.advocate.com is a LGBT-themed news site. So, between that, and the fact that the subheading of the article was "In a groundbreaking move, the state takes a stand against defendants being able to use a victim's sexual orientation or gender identity as justification for murder," I think its safe to assume the article is referring to panic defense used in cases where homosexuals were assaulted, and the perpetrator claims he or she assaulted the victim because the perpetrator flew into some uncontrollable rage because they found out the victim was homosexual. I think its possible that because a certain audience is assumed by the writer of the article, the use of quotes around panic in the second paragraph, implies the meaning of gay panic, and the reader is supposed to already know that. I agree that is the assumption the writer of the article wants you to make, but the article is still poorly written. The second paragraph says "Last month, the California Assembly passed the bill by a vote of 50-10, sending the bill to Brown's desk for signature. The bill, authored by Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, bars the use of "panic" defenses in California criminal courts." From the text of that paragraph, I do not know exactly is being barred- panic defenses in total, or just in "gay panic" cases. This is a problem easily solved by adding a few words to the end of the second paragraph that clarifies that it's only in instances of discovering sexual orientation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Mathison Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 Poorly written article. It is unclear if the legislation removes the 'panic' defense completely, or just when used as a reaction to discomfort with homosexuals. The second paragraph says its the former; the fifth paragraph says it's the latter. If the latter, I have no real issue with that. If it's the former, then this is terrible legislation, since it basically turns all voluntary manslaughter (i.e. 3rd degree murder) into 2nd degree murder. They should stop taking frame of mind into account period. Is someone less dead because you think Bruce Lee lives in your vagina and told you to kill that guy? Silly idea. The concept of mens rea is the entire underpinning of the criminal justice system and the philosophical justification for why a crime can be punished by the state. If you remove the concept of criminal intent, then you are basically saying all crimes should be treated as statutory rape or traffic tickets, which is an uncommonly stupid idea. I think what you really meant to say is you want to restrict the insanity defense, which is already done to a large degree (wiki the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984). I probably have the best understanding of the law of any non-attorney on Nightly, due to my job. 95% of my job is basically interpreting and explaining insurance policies, determining liability and applying state and local ordinances. So trust me when I say, that was my point. I knew at least someone would pick up on it. OK, I'll buy that was your point. Even then though, I'm not exactly sure what you want done about it. Would you ban the insanity defense altogether? Insanity is already a high burden to reach. I think there's a misconception in the public that it's like this get-out-of-jail-free card that violent felons routinely use to get off the hook. When in reality, it almost always fails. It's a burden that the defendant has to prove- it's not on the state (i.e. there is no 'innocent until proven guilty'.. with insanity, it's basically guilty until proven innocent). The law, as it is, already restricts the use of the defense about as much as you can without getting rid of it altogether. So what would you have done? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted October 7, 2014 Share Posted October 7, 2014 CM, it appears the site, www.advocate.com is a LGBT-themed news site. So, between that, and the fact that the subheading of the article was "In a groundbreaking move, the state takes a stand against defendants being able to use a victim's sexual orientation or gender identity as justification for murder," I think its safe to assume the article is referring to panic defense used in cases where homosexuals were assaulted, and the perpetrator claims he or she assaulted the victim because the perpetrator flew into some uncontrollable rage because they found out the victim was homosexual. I think its possible that because a certain audience is assumed by the writer of the article, the use of quotes around panic in the second paragraph, implies the meaning of gay panic, and the reader is supposed to already know that.I agree that is the assumption the writer of the article wants you to make, but the article is still poorly written. The second paragraph says "Last month, the California Assembly passed the bill by a vote of 50-10, sending the bill to Brown's desk for signature. The bill, authored by Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, bars the use of "panic" defenses in California criminal courts." From the text of that paragraph, I do not know exactly is being barred- panic defenses in total, or just in "gay panic" cases. This is a problem easily solved by adding a few words to the end of the second paragraph that clarifies that it's only in instances of discovering sexual orientation. I agree it was badly written, and I also agree with your original point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitth'raw'nuroudo Posted October 9, 2014 Share Posted October 9, 2014 OH HAI JUSTEECE I DID _NOT_ SEE YOU _THERE._ LONg TIMENO SEE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pong Messiah Posted October 9, 2014 Author Share Posted October 9, 2014 wat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitth'raw'nuroudo Posted October 12, 2014 Share Posted October 12, 2014 Justice. It's nice to see some. Been too long it has. Justice as in Lady Scalemaid, not the nightly member.Also Tommy Wiseau. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts