The end of September marks the one-year anniversary of an important milestone in LGBTQ+ rights in America. In September 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill making California the first ever American state to ban what are known as the gay and trans panic defences. These are usually invoked in cases of murder when the defendant wants to make a case for a shorter prison sentence based on the claim that they were so shocked to learn that the victim was gay or trans that they became temporarily insane and resorted to violence. No need to reread that sentence. Your eyes have not deceived you.
Upon hearing the news, many were thrilled that California had banned this ridiculous defence from being used in court, but also began to question why in the hell this defence ever existed in the first place. Most people had never previously heard of its existence and, leading the relatively sheltered and privileged life that I did, I was no exception. In fact, I did not learn about it until a few days ago when one of my American friends posted about it on Facebook. Curious to know more, I began searching through various sources to find out where this sorry excuse for a defence is still recognised today. Aside from known cases in America and New Zealand, gay and trans panic are also still considered legitimate murder defences in Queensland and South Australia.
“In fact, Mr Parsons was executed after having lost the case.”
In 1987 in the US, Joseph Mitchell Parsons, who by the way nicknamed himself the “Rainbow Warrior” (not an embarrassing title at all), insisted that he murdered Richard Lynn Ernest as a form of self defence against an unwanted homosexual advance (because a name like “Rainbow Warrior” must attract countless suitors). However, no evidence could be provided to support this claim during his trial. Witnesses later testified that Parsons had in fact previously voluntarily engaged in homosexual activity while a forensic psychiatrist from the University of Utah concluded that it was highly likely that the defendant was in fact the one making unwanted advances and became violent when rejected. In this case, the defence was not only illogical but also completely unfounded. In fact, Mr Parsons was executed after having lost the case. But this begs the question of how many lies like this one went unnoticed, allowing an abuser to make false claims about their victim to save their own skin.
In July 2009 in New Zealand, Ferdinand Ambach was prosecuted for killing Ronald Brown by not only hitting him with a banjo, but also proceeding to shove its neck down Brown’s throat. Having originally been convicted of murder, he was finally charged only with manslaughter when his lawyer made him plead the gay panic defence. One cannot but wonder whether, even if this had been a legitimate excuse for self-defence, resorting to such creative methods of torture was not overly-sadistic and unneeded once the necessary defensive attack was over.
Even more recently, a transgender woman named Jennifer Laude was killed in the Philippines in 2014 by a US Marine, who claimed that he had been unaware that Laude was transgender. This has sparked outrage in the Philippines and protests by transgender rights activists are still ongoing.
“The word ‘panic’ as well as ‘phobia’ in ‘homophobia’ and ‘transphobia’ are terribly misleading, suggesting a genuine fear of another human being rather than hatred based on prejudice.”
I have never heard of a defence that needs to be defended, but here it is. People have tried to justify it by claiming that a homophobic person should not be held accountable for their actions when faced with the subject of their phobia. And in here lies the problem. The word ‘panic’ as well as ‘phobia’ in ‘homophobia’ and ‘transphobia’ are terribly misleading, suggesting a genuine fear of another human being rather than hatred based on prejudice. When a homophobe is faced with an LGBTQ+ member, they do not run for the hills as I would when faced with, say, a venomous snake. Rather, they react with anger and loathing strong enough to overpower the often vulnerable victim to the point where it is absurd to suggest that the aggressor was ever under any risk of harm. Even in cases where fear serves as a catalyst for violence, such as when I kill an insect, I have never felt the need to resort to torture and other unnecessary measures after having defended myself.
This is all irrelevant when we remind ourselves that people should not be likened to objects or animals in the first place and have rights enforceable against the aggressor. I can’t believe that in 2015, we still have to clarify that homophobia is no excuse for violence and under no circumstances should someone be allowed to harm another human being unless he poses a significant and real threat. And if someone out there actually has a genuine debilitating fear of another human being simply because they are gay or trans, then shouldn’t that person receive psychiatric attention rather than be allowed to harm an innocent human being? When will we stop blaming sufferers in order to defend criminals, especially in situations where the victim conveniently isn’t even alive to counter the murderer’s statement in court?
