Gov. Whitmer Shuts Down Controversial Gay and Trans 'Panic Defense' in Landmark Legislation
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) signed legislation on Tuesday that would make gay and transgender “panic” defense ineligible in state courtrooms. This move will make it harder for those convicted of committing violent crimes against members of the LGBTQ community to avoid accountability for their actions.
The defense is often used to lessen sentencing for individuals who violently attack their victims. Now, Michigan is nullifying this legal strategy.
“Gay and transgender “panic” defenses are no longer viable in Michigan courtrooms under legislation signed Tuesday by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.
Michigan is the 20th state to outlaw such defenses, which allow individuals accused of violent crimes to receive lesser sentences by arguing that the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity caused them to panic. While gay and trans “panic” defenses — referred to collectively as the LGBTQ “panic” defense — are not freestanding defenses, they are used in conjunction with other legal strategies to reduce the severity of charges or sentencing.
Michigan’s law significantly expands legal protections for LGBTQ people against discrimination, prejudice, and hate crimes by specifying that a defendant cannot use a person’s actual or perceived identity to demonstrate “reasonable provocation” or to show they acted in the heat of passion.”
Democratic State Rep. Laurie Pohutsky lauded Whitmer’s move, calling it “a huge step toward securing a safe and inclusive for all Michiganders.”
The gay “panic” defense is a controversial legal maneuver employed by defendants in criminal cases typically involving assault or murder. The strategy involves mitigating the defendant’s culpability by arguing that they acted in a state of temporary insanity or diminished capacity caused by a sudden and intense emotional reaction to an unwanted sexual advance from a same-sex or transgender person.
Critics of the panic defense argue that it perpetuates harmful stereotypes against members of the LGBTQ community and legitimizes violence against these individuals by implying that same-sex or transgender advances are inherently provocative or threatening. It can also result in unjust outcomes where perpetrators can receive lighter sentences or even acquittals.
The case of Gwen Araujo provides a tragic example of how this defense can be used to help those who assault others. Araujo was a 17-year-old teenager in Newark, California. Originally born as Eddie Araujo, Gwen identified as a woman.
During a party on October 3, 2002, four male acquaintances of Araujo discovered that he was a biological male. They responded by viciously assaulting and killing him.
“Gwen Araujo was at a house party in Newark, in Alameda County, on Oct. 4, 2002. Several men there —Jason Cazares, Michael Magidson, José Merél, and Jaron Nabors — suspected she had male anatomical parts. She’d reportedly been intimate with Magidson and Merél, and at the party, Magidson demanded Araujo let him touch her genitals or expose them to him, which request she refused. When another person who was there forcibly inspected Araujo and discovered male genitalia, the men became violent.
The men subsequently beat, tortured, and strangled Araujo, before driving east to the Sierra Nevada mountains to bury her body.
Nabors pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced to 11 years in exchange for a promise to testify against Cazares, Magidson, and Merél. At the first trial of the trio in 2004, the defense for Magidson and Merél used the so-called “gay panic defense,” with Magidson’s lawyer saying his client had lost his reason after his discovery about Araujo.”
The defendants’ attorneys argued that they were provoked into a violent rage upon discovering Gwen’s actual sex. The lawyers contended that the discovery was so shocking and emotionally disturbing that it caused the assailants to temporarily lose control. In essence, they portrayed the murder as a spontaneous reaction to an unexpected situation instead of a premeditated act.
The prosecution pushed back against the defense, insisting that the murder was a deliberate hate crime motivated by transphobia. They pointed to the prolonged and deliberate nature of the attack and asserted that the defendant’s acts were intentional and calculated.
Araujo’s case sparked national criticism and even pushed California’s legislature to pass the “Gwen Araujo Justice for Victims Act” in 2006, which limited the use of the “panic defense” by mandating that a victim’s gender identity or sexual orientation cannot be used to justify violent acts.
This is a rare, good move on Gov. Whitmer’s part. While I am not a fan of the idea of a “hate crime,” those who violate other people’s rights should be held accountable. When someone commits an act of violence against another person – regardless of the motivation – they should not be allowed to use that person’s sexual orientation or gender identity to avoid punishment.
The “panic” defense is nothing more than a cynical way to blame the victim for the actions of their assailant. Even if the victim behaved inappropriately or deceptively, it does not justify violence. While those actions might be wrong, they do not warrant a violent assault or murder.
When someone’s natural rights are violated, the offender should be held accountable. Using this type of legal maneuver to partially or fully absolve violent individuals should never be a viable argument in a court of law.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
 | A guest post by
|
How about there is no "panic defense" for any crime? I really dislike the "hate crime" prosecutions. How about just prosecuting murder and other violence?
While I don't think that anyone should be let off for violent crime, the fact that many "trans identifying" people rely on deception, and indeed seek it as a goal, because that's what "passing" is... seems overlooked here as a negative.
There IS a greater truth in reality (sex: male and female), and many "trans identifying" people, especially males trying to pass themselves off as females, intentionally take risk that put themselves at risk of violence (see how often "going stealth" is mentioned in their Reddit posts, and elsewhere, which means not informing a sexual partner that they are not the sex they are mimicking).
Again, this IN NO WAY justifies violence, but consent was a matter of frequent discussion in the #MeToo era, it's troubling that here it seems cool to gloss over the fact that some people in a group deny others the right to consent (especially dangerous when men are the ones being deceived, because THEIR sexual orientation is being disregarded).
I agree with the other commenter here, there's nothing "wrong speak" here. It's cheering for the regime.