The first California specific LGBT issue bill I ever lobbied for was 2006’s Justice for Gwen Araujo Act (AB 1170). The “What This Bill Will Do” section of Equality California’s fact sheet stated, “In order to dissuade the use of appeals to prejudice and bias in an attempt to gain acquittal, a favorable plea or a reduction of sentence, this bill would allow a party to a criminal trial or proceeding to request that the court instruct jurors not to allow bias based on sexual orientation, gender identity or other protected bases to influence their decision. It would also direct the Office of Emergency Services to develop materials for city and county prosecutors explaining how to prevent bias from affecting the outcome of a trial. In conjunction with hate crimes legislation, this bill makes an important stand that bias and hate will not be tolerated in California.”
That bill came about because of what happened at the trials of the killers of Gwen Araujo and Joel Robles. In both cases, the “gay panic”/”trans panic” defense (a form of “crime of passion” defense) was used in what some would say a successful manner. In the case of Joel Robles’ killer, Estanislao Martinez, he entered a plea agreement with the Fresno district attorney for a manslaughter conviction and received a four year sentence — three for the killing and one for using a pair of scissors to commit the crime.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed AB 1170, and it became law Jan. 1, 2007.
The promise of the Justice for Gwen Araujo Act turned out to be inadequate. Feb. 12, 2008, Brandon McInerney, who was 14 at the time, shot Lawrence “Larry” King, 15, at their Oxnard, Calif. middle school. King had been harassed in school because he was perceived to be gay due to his increasingly feminine gender expression. King yelled back at those harassing him, saying things like, “I know you want me.” One of the harassers was McInerney. An Aug. 11, 2011 article by the Los Angeles Times stated, “After days of escalating tensions between King and McInerney, McInerney, then 14, brought a handgun to the Oxnard school on Feb. 12, 2008, and shot King twice in the back of the head. King died two days later.”
The first trial ended up in a seven to five deadlock over convicting McInerney on manslaughter, and cleared him of committing a hate crime. In a deal before a second trial, McInerney pleaded guilty to both second-degree and voluntary manslaughter, and was sentenced to 21 years in prison. A second trial was avoided which could have resulted in a life sentence for McInerney.
However, having “the court instruct jurors not to allow bias based on sexual orientation, gender identity or other protected bases to influence their decision” didn’t actually change the ability to blame the victim with a “gay panic”/”trans panic” defense.
In late September of this year, Gov. Brown signed the “End the Panic Defense Act” (AB 2501). The Equality California fact sheet cited the Gwen Araujo and Joel Robles murders as a reason the bill was needed. But, AB 2501’s fact sheet also cited the murder of Lawrence King. “These [three] cases illustrate how panic defenses have been successfully employed to take advantage of stereotypes and biases and as a result,” stated the AB 2501 fact sheet, “obscure justice.”
The promise of AB 2501 is that the bill, “… ensures that defendants cannot use the so-called ‘panic defense’ in an attempt to lower a charge from murder to manslaughter or to escape conviction,” stated the fact sheet. “In addition, AB 2501 ensures that such a defense cannot be used in cases of lesser charges, such as assault.”
I hate thinking about this; but we learned how ineffective AB 1170 was when it was first applied in the Larry King murder trial, and we’ll learn how effective AB 2501 is when this law is first applied in a future trial.
And that’s the sad, painful part; the trial that determines the effectiveness of AB 2501 is going to be about yet another murdered LGBT community member. That will be a horrible way to find out if AB 2501 is effective.
While this law is certainly a good idea, there also needs to be education for those who will still wind up as victims. All too often, support for this law is accompanied by pushing the idea that it will somehow protect so-called “trans women” from being murdered. The simple fact is, it largely won’t. While it should not be accepted as an excuse for murder, a lot of men, suddenly discovering that the “woman” they are dating has a penis is going to lead to violence. And giving someone the idea that such a law will prevent such from happening is not going to protect a lot of people from dying. It will only lead to a conviction when the murder does occur. Revenge after the fact is not as good as preventing the murder from ever happening. Unfortunately, the political slant of far too many is to promote a denial of reality, and push the idea that women have penises. And then to use the resulting deaths as political fodder.