- cross-posted to:
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- globalnews@lemmy.zip
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/2089998
Archived version: https://archive.ph/X5D30
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230830081318/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66654134
You say that like it's explicitly allowed by the state. It isn't. It's a legal defense lawyers use in court. Whether or not it's legitimate is determined by a jury.
gAy PaNiC is never legitimate.
Tell that to the jury. What are you expecting to happen?
Wow, it is almost like a place where juries let people off on the gay panic defense is a place that is unsafe to be as a trans person.
weird how "gay panic" is a defense allowed by the courts, but an appeal to jury nullification is not.
Curious
Do other countries not have juries?
Are other countries juries exposed to our media ecosystem (in the same way) which the US government supports and which pushes vile transphobia constantly?
Some other countries (and just a couple US states) explicitly ban the gay panic defense.
I'll tell em you're gay and I panicked
If you don't have any interest in a good faith discussion, you can just go ahead and stop replying to me please.
good faith is being obtuse
Good faith? I'm sorry, could you be more specific? What do you mean?
the state, inside and outside courtrooms, to shut down hate crimes.
Well that's a very easy thing to say but I'm afraid you're going to have to be more specific.
funny how we can defend property through a system of laws and enforcement but that's not specific enough to stop hate crimes
Okay so you don't know then? It's ok to just say that.
don't know what? laws that criminalize being queer should be stricken from the books and the people who do hate crimes should be punished. both of those elements are being rolled back in the US and you're being obtuse.
There are no such laws in existence in this country.
why would you lie like this
Meanwhile in reality, there is still plenty of shit on the books that will be enforced again if the conservative Supreme Court changes precedent and new laws are being passed with the ultimate goal of exterminating trans people.
You need to learn that whether something is explicit or not doesn't matter as much as what is happening in effect.
But that "effect" has nothing to do with the US...
Yes, because no jury members live in the US corporate media ecosystem which pushes vile transphobia constantly with the support of the US government.
There are no jury members outside the US? That's your position?
You aren't able to read a one sentence reply? Is that your position?
Or is it that you dont want to engage with the content and are just saying bullshit instead of being thoughtful?
Not only am I able, but I did. Anything else you'd like to fabricate about me?
I'm somewhere in between "you can't read" and "you're a debate pervert". I decided to settle at "it's both".
Coming to the same conclusion.
Well, you sure didn't act like it based on your previous response, and you still haven't responded to the sentence meaningfully, so.., the latter then?
Do you just not want to engage with the content?
I didn't respond meaningfully because the reply was not meaningful. It was just fabricated lies.
This?
This is lies?
Are you a naive or just willfully ignorant about how the US media apparatus works?
they're a bigot pulling debate pervert shit to mask their bigotry
Absolutely, yeah
That's clearly not what I was referring to. I don't engage with bad faith actors. Goodbye.
engages in bad faith I don't engage with bad faith actors
Kay snowflake. Rather you leave than keep being hysterical about something that doesn't affect you and that you know nothing about.
It is. Keeping it a valid legal defense is a policy choice. Some states banned it, they chose to. Other states have not, they decided not to. That's politics.
But it's not a valid legal defense. You cannot ban a lawyer from putting it forward as a legal defense.
Except you actually can, and many states have
Show me, please
You literally can, just like any number of other valid bases for objections to arguments put forward. If the judge rules it to be such a defense, it would be struck from the record and the jury instructed to disregard it, and if the lawyer keeps on it, they would be held in contempt of court. Furthermore, if it is plainly a case of such a defense and the judge lets it fly, the prosecution can claim mistrial.
Perhaps there are other ways of banning it, but that is the obvious one in the American framework.