he victim on trial, analyzing his actions and deciding where the blame should lie. By concentrating so much on the nature of the sexual advance, the suggestion is that some homosexual advances are not only wrong, but also worthy of murder. The Harvard editors stress that "even when defendantsdo not raise homosexual panic as a defense, the admission of evidence of a victim's homosexuality often results in an undue lenience towards the defendants" (Stryker 2). It suggests that gay men are "asking for it" by their behavior or mere existence. The simple fact of the matter is that excuses for violence based on any prejudice should not be tolerated; a defense claiming fear and panic against an ethnic minority would never be allowed. Whether a person suffered from insanity in an attack against a gay or another minority is irrelevant. If we allow these types of defense to bear weight, the societal repercussions are too severe. It becomes too easy for atrocities in the justice system to exist; it becomes too easy for hate crimes to be excused. We should not allow this defense of extreme hatred to stand in cases involving attacks against gays. Homophobic hatred cannot be employed as an affirmative defense for criminal acts. Not only is this morally wrong, but the costs to the nation are simply too high if we allow juries with individual prejudices make such critical decisions. We still have a long way to go in the fight against homophobia, but the justice system can act as a catalyst in this process by refusing to allow this defense to exist. There must be an end to the use of the homosexual panic defense; it can no longer be used to excuse the brutality and murder in our society. Judges around the nation must follow the example of Judge Barton Voigt in Aaron McKinney's case and simply reject this specious defense. We should be proud of how far we've come but we must be aware that we still have a long way to go....
