re elucidated by this case; there are too many potential societal costs associated with letting a jury make a biased decision. The mere fact that juries are able to excuse these actions suggests the inherent homophobia in our society. We cannot let juries set a precedent that it is acceptable to kill out of hatred for gays. Fortunately, juries have become less willing to accept homosexual panic as a defense in recent years. In contrast to the sixties and seventies, the gay panic defense is no longer a guarantee of an acquittal or reduced charges (Hammer 2). Brian Levin, director of the California-based Center on Hate and Extremism, believes that this decline is the result of increasing tolerance of homosexuals in America, noting that "we've turned a very big corner in that nearly everyone agrees that violence against [homosexuals] is completely wrong" (Black 1). Richard Haynes, director of the New York City Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project, points to the ludicrous nature of the defense in that "if women could use the equivalent of a 'gay panic' defense for every unwanted advance by men, there would be no heterosexual men left" (Hammer 1). Huebner is outraged at the use of the homosexual panic defense. "The homosexual panic defense is the legal opposite of the hate crime legislation in our judicial system." One tries to make hate crimes a more serious offense, whereas the homosexual panic defense is lessening the severity of the most heinous of hate crimes. Murder is only the most extreme expression of homophobic hate crimes. Nearly half of all gays and lesbians have been threatened with violence; an overwhelming eighty percent have been verbally abused. Gay bashing Excusing violence motivated by prejudice is simple reprehensible. This defense devalues the life of a gay person, preying on "the emotions of a jury by lessening the value of a gay person's life because they allegedly made an advance" (Cart "Says" 2). This defense puts t...
