The Gay Panic Defense: Legal Defense Strategy or Reinforcement of Homophobia in Court?

Abstract

Gay panic refers to a heterosexual man violently responding to unwanted sexual advances from a gay man. In court, the defendant may argue he was provoked or temporarily insane. This study utilized 352 jury-eligible citizens to assess differences across mediums of gay panic. Participants were asked to read vignettes depicting a control, gay panic as provocation, or gay panic as insanity condition and provide verdicts and ratings of blame and responsibility. Participants also completed measures assessing political orientation and homonegativity. Data were analyzed via a MANCOVA, a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, and general linear modeling. Verdicts, victim blame, and ratings of responsibility differed across vignette conditions, with an observed leniency effect when gay panic was claimed in either context. Homonegativity also exacerbated patterns of prodefendant views, as participants higher in homonegativity assigned higher victim blame, lower defendant responsibility, and more lenient verdicts in the gay panic conditions. The effect of political orientation was nuanced, as only republicans in the provocation condition followed the anticipated pattern in rendering more lenient verdicts. Results provide additional support for the notion gay panic defenses may be, in part, fueled by political beliefs and prejudicial beliefs against persons of sexual minority status. Drawing from a justification-suppression model, it may be that in cases of gay panic, a context is created in which prejudiced ideologies can be openly expressed via leniency on the defendant. Implications may be relevant to future criminal law policies and practices, particularly advocacy and policy efforts, judicial training, and trial consultation to attorneys for juror selection and development of trial strategy.

When Is “Gay Panic” Accepted? Exploring Juror Characteristics and Case Type as Predictors of a Successful Gay Panic Defense

“…Overall, they found an effect of homonegativity in the gay panic conditions; participants who rated higher in homonegativity were more likely to find the defendant not guilty when the gay panic defense was presented by associating the victim with higher blame and the defendant with lesser responsibility. In addition, Tomei et al (2020) found the same pattern of results for conservative jurors that Salerno et al (2015) did.…”

“…Through replication of and extension upon the findings of Salerno et al (2015) and Tomei et al (2020), our study aimed to expand upon our knowledge of juror characteristics and perceptions that affect jurors' willingness to accept gay panic as a legitimate provocation defense. This study examined the impact of the juror characteristics of homophobia, political orientation, and religious fundamentalism on the success of a gay panic defense compared with a neutral provocation defense.…”

“…The authors explained their findings in terms of moral outrage stating that moral outrage toward the same-gender sexual advance of the victim led to less punitive judgments of the defendant; therefore, conservative jurors were less likely to choose a murder verdict in the gay panic condition. Tomei et al (2020) followed up on the Salerno et al (2015) study by examining the gay panic provocation defense utilizing an assault case. Overall, they found an effect of homonegativity in the gay panic conditions; participants who rated higher in homonegativity were more likely to find the defendant not guilty when the gay panic defense was presented by associating the victim with higher blame and the defendant with lesser responsibility.…”

“…Although there are several high-profile cases in which gay panic defense was used (e.g., the murders of Matthew Shepard, Larry King, and Daniel Spencer), there is still relatively little research on gay panic defense and the variables that might predict when the defense is likely to be successful. Previous research has shown that juror characteristics such as homophobia and a more conservative political ideology are related to an increased chance that the gay panic defense would be seen as a legitimate provocation defense and result in more lenient verdicts for the defendant (Salerno et al, 2015;Tomei et al, 2020). In addition, Jonathan (2008) found that religious fundamentalism and right-wing authoritarianism predicted homophobic beliefs.…”

Research Note: Comparing the Gay and Trans Panic Defenses

“…Another study that focuses on present day society also suggests that bias against gay men and trans women continues to influence the decision-making of juries. Specifically, Tomei et al (2017) found that a jury's political beliefs and views about homosexuality impact their willingness to accept the gay panic defense. Politically conservative jurors generally support guilty verdicts and more severe punishments, except when the victim is gay.…”