NationStates

Posted: **Sun Dec 08, 2019 11:26 am**

Inspired by this: https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-129- ... -12-6-2019 thought I'd try a more serious issue than I normally do.

Title: The Trans Panic Button

text: A man picked up a transgender women at bar and brought her home, where she was subsequently beaten to death, with several of her valuables stolen. In the ensuing court case, the defense lawyer argued the so-called "trans panic" defense; that his client upon realizing that he had picked up a trans woman had his honor so besmeared that he went temporarily criminally insane and was not responsible for his actions. The jury acquitted him off all charges.

validity: homosexuality is legal, has juries

option 1: "This is an outrage!" cries the prosecuting attorney @@RANOMNAME@@, while slamming the court records on your desk and then writing 'outrage' in big letters with a red sharpie on the first page. "We cannot let defense lawyers play to the prejudices of the juries. Would we tolerate this if it was suggested someone went insane because they picked up a Bigtopian woman? Outlaw the practice of defense lawyers using sexuality and gender identity of the victim as a mitigating factors."
fallout: defense lawyers suggestively note to juries how flagrantly happy victims were

option 2: Defense attorney @@RANDOMNAME@@ storms into your office and silently mimes yelling while wildly gesticulating, finally he actually speaks. "Sorry about that, but you were thinking of taking away my ability to use my speech to defend my clients. My client was already suffering from depression and a thyroid problem and the transgender nature of the victim provides critical context to my client's mental state at the time of the murder. What sort of pertinent information will you outlaw defense attorneys from presenting next? In the end you have to trust juries to decide what's a legitimate defense argument and what's not."
fallout: defense lawyers often argue there's no proof murder victims weren't vampires

option 3: "@@HE@@ kind of has a point," notes LGBT activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, while affixing a sticker of a rainbow-colored @@DEMONYM ADJ@@ flag to your desk. "The problem is that there's so much latent bias among @@DEMONYM@@ that juries fall for this tripe. Ultimately, the responsibility to changing things falls on @@DEMONYM ADJ@@ leaders which last I checked includes you. Increase LGBT representation in your cabinet and government generally, sign more laws preventing LGTB discrimination and mandating LGTB hiring, and promote more anti-hate crime legislation. Do what needs to be done to change @@DEMONYM ADJ@@ hearts and minds."
fallout: @@LEADER@@ is considering changing the @@DEMONYM ADJ@@ flag to one with more glitter

Posted: **Sun Dec 08, 2019 1:54 pm**

Is this issue supposed to be about gay panic or trans panic? Because it seems like you had trouble deciding, or possibly decided to change it at the last minute. Also: missing an option to make "trans panic" a valid defense.

defense lawyers winkingly note to juries how flagrantly happy victims were

I don't really like this effect, though I'm having trouble coming up with anything better.

Option 2 seems pretty weak. I'd suggest something along the lines of making the defendant nearly insane so that the defense attorney actually has something to work with. Alternatively, you could have him using a "slippery slope" argument, along the lines of "what's next? The fifth amendment?" (or the equivalent thereof)

a glitter version of the @@DEMONYM ADJ@@ flag is being considered to adoption

What does this even mean, and what does it have to do with the option?

Posted: **Sun Dec 08, 2019 3:27 pm**

Ransium wrote:Inspired by this: https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-129- ... -12-6-2019 thought I'd try a more serious issue than I normally do.
Title: The Trans Panic Button

text: A man picked up a transgender woman at bar and brought her home

Some typos.

Posted: **Sun Dec 08, 2019 4:17 pm**

Sorry, yes this was originally about a gay man and I changed it to a transgender woman in a second draft and I was a bit hasty. I was frustrated with two when I posted, I think I've made it somewhat stronger in this draft. I hate all the effects lines and am open to suggestions.

Posted: **Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:28 pm**

With that in mind, should the issue really require homosexuality to be legal?

Have some proofreading:

Title: The Trans Panic Button

text: A man picked up a transgender women at a bar and brought her home, where she was subsequently beaten to death, with several of her valuables ~~were~~ stolen. In the ensuing court case, the defense lawyer argued the so-called "trans panic" defense: that his client, upon realizing that he had picked up a trans woman, had his honor so besmeared that he went temporarily criminally insane and was not responsible for his actions. ~~Subsequently,~~ The jury acquitted him off all charges.

validity: homosexuality is legal, has juries

option 1: "This is an outrage!" cries the prosecuting attorney @@RANDOMNAME@@, while slamming the court records on your desk and then writing 'outrage' in big letters with a red sharpie on the first page. "We cannot let defense lawyers play to the prejudices of the juries. Would we tolerate this if it was suggested someone went insane because they picked up a Bigtopian women? Outlaw the practice of defense lawyers using the gender identity of the victim as a mitigating factor."
fallout: defense lawyers winkingly note to juries how flagrantly happy victims were

option 2: Defense attorney @@RANDOMNAME@@ storms into your office and silently mimes yelling while wildly gesticulating. Finally @@HE@@ actually speaks. "Sorry about that, but you were thinking of taking away my ability to use my speech to defend my clients. My client was already suffering from depression and a thyroid problem and the transgender nature of the victim provides critical context to my clients mental state at the time of the murder. What sort of pertinent information will you outlaw defense attorneys from presenting next? In the end you have to trust juries to decide what's a legitimate defense argument and what's not."
fallout: defense lawyers often argue there's no proof murder victims weren't vampires

option 3: "@@HE@@ kind of has a point," note LGBT activist @@RANDOMNAME@@, while affixing a sticker of a rainbow-colored @@DEMONYM ADJ@@ flag to your desk. "The problem is that there's so much latent biases among @@DEMONYM@@ that juries fall for this tripe. Ultimately, the responsibility to changing things falls on @@DEMONYM ADJ@@ leaders, which, last I checked includes you. Increase LGBT representation in your cabinet and government generally, sign more laws preventing anti-LGBT discrimination and mandating LGBT hiring, and promote more anti-hate crime legislation. Do what needs to be done to change @@DEMONYM ADJ@@ hearts and minds."
fallout: @@LEADER@@ is considering changing the @@DEMONYM ADJ@@ flag to one with more glitter

I'm assuming the "depression and a thyroid problem" is intentionally a bad argument?

Posted: **Sun Dec 08, 2019 6:44 pm**

I get the premise, but the IRL case relied on there being an outdated clause in the actual law stating that that was a possible defence. Right now, option 1 is going with "stop bringing up the sexuality of the victim in court", but IMO more should be put in about stopping gay/trans panic from being a legal defence, regardless of the victim's sexuality.

Ransium wrote:transgender women at bar and brought her home

If it's just stylistic, this could be a transgender @@WOMAN@@, and macro'd as such. If it's making a comment that this is far more likely when a cis man picks up a trans woman than a cis woman and a trans man, carry on.

Ransium wrote:Defense attorney @@RANDOMNAME@@ storms into your office and silently mimes yelling while wildly gesticulating, finally he actually speaks.

This seems a bit clunky, although it's objectively error-free. Maybe remove the gesticulating bit? Or re-do the intro to speech part.

A couple minor spelling/grammar/word choice things:

Ransium wrote:picked up a Bigtopian women?

woman

Ransium wrote:defense lawyers winkingly note to juries how flagrantly happy victims were

Maybe suggestively instead of "winkingly"?

Ransium wrote:critical context to my clients mental state

client's

Ransium wrote:note LGBT activist @@RANDOMNAME@@,

notes

Ransium wrote: "The problem is that there's so much latent biases

bias

Ransium wrote:LGTB discrimination and mandating LGTD hiring

LGBT? (this might be deliberate, i'm not sure)

Posted: **Sun Dec 08, 2019 7:49 pm**

For the end of option 1, sexuality is not the same this as gender identity. I am guessing that might have been another carry over from the first draft?

Posted: **Sun Dec 08, 2019 9:14 pm**

Okay, a bunch of changes have been made.

Leppikania wrote:With that in mind, should the issue really require homosexuality to be legal?

Transgenderism is not tracked separately from homosexuality in the issue basis, and the no homosexuality is often used as a stand in. Most issues that ban homosexuality implicitly or explicitly ban transgender people too.

Leppikania wrote:I'm assuming the "depression and a thyroid problem" is intentionally a bad argument?

If you listen to the podcast linked in OP, although I'm mashing together a couple real world cases both involving gay people not transgender people, it was basically the successful argument of a defense lawyer in the last 10-20 years.

SherpDaWerp wrote:I get the premise, but the IRL case relied on there being an outdated clause in the actual law stating that that was a possible defence.

Again if you listen to the podcast in OP, I'm referencing numerous cases in the US, some have occurred in the last few years. A majority of US states do not currently have laws explicitly banning "gay panic" defenses.

Posted: **Mon Dec 09, 2019 2:32 am**

Good issue.

Ransium wrote:Transgenderism is not tracked separately from homosexuality in the issue basis, and the no homosexuality is often used as a stand in. Most issues that ban homosexuality implicitly or explicitly ban transgender people too.

Right, though at this stage I reckon it needs its own policy. We can work that out backstage though, of course.

Posted: **Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:49 am**

Acquisition seems a bit outlamdish. Has it ever happened?

Posted: **Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:55 am**

Australian rePublic wrote:Acquisition seems a bit outlamdish. Has it ever happened?

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic ... ic_defense

Posted: **Tue Dec 10, 2019 5:05 am**

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:
Australian rePublic wrote:Acquisition seems a bit outlamdish. Has it ever happened?

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_panic ... ic_defense

Ok, carry on

NationStates

[DRAFT] The Trans Panic Button

[DRAFT] The Trans Panic Button