Content Warning: violence against trans people
During Transgender Awareness Week, and on Transgender Day of Remembrance, I want to talk about a topic that is in dire need of more attention: the “trans panic” defense. What is the "trans panic" defense? The "trans panic" defense is defined by the LGBT Bar as "a legal strategy that asks the jury to find the victim's gender identity is to blame for the defendant's violent reaction, even murder." This legal strategy has been used against other LGBTQ people of various sexual orientations and gender identities, but in this article, I want to specifically address the killings of transgender people. This takes victim-blaming to a whole new level. According to the Williams Institute, the "trans panic" defense is used to allow the defendant to receive a lesser sentence or avoid conviction and punishment altogether. This defense shifts the blame for the murder from the murderer to the murder victim. That doesn’t sound like justice, does it? Yet in most states, the “trans panic” defense is viable in court. However, it is not recognized as a stand-alone defense.
“Transgender panic” has been used in tandem with three different defenses. The first defense is provocation. Provocation is the argument that the defendant was provoked by the “discovery, knowledge, or potential disclosure” of the victim’s gender identity. It is argued that this was a provocative act against the defendant that caused them to assault or kill the victim in the “heat of passion”. The second argument is diminished capacity, meaning that the defendant, upon learning about the victim’s gender identity, had a mental breakdown that led them to murder the victim. Finally, self-defense is used as an argument to say that the defendant felt as though they were in bodily danger because of the victim.
In 2002, seventeen-year-old Gwen Araujo was murdered by two men she met online. They previously had sexual relations, but when they found out that Araujo was a transgender woman months later, they (along with two other men) beat her, strangled her, tied her up, and hit her over the head with a shovel. Two of the defendants argued that it was the shock of finding out that Araujo was transgender that caused them to murder her. These two were convicted of second-degree murder, while the other two who helped were convicted of voluntary manslaughter.
In 2014, a transgender Filipina, Jennifer Laude, was murdered by a US Marine who was stationed in the Philippines. Upon learning that Laude was transgender, he strangled her. The Marine was tried and convicted of homicide by a court in the Philippines. He was sentenced to ten years maximum but was recently sent home after only serving six years. President Rodrigo Duterte granted the Marine absolute pardon, nullifying his sentence.
On the other hand, some cases do receive just convictions. In 2008, transgender woman, Angie Zapata, was beaten to death by a man she met online. Once again, upon learning that the victim was transgender, the perpetrator inflicted lethal violence against the victim. However, this case ended with the defendant being convicted of both felony murder and a felony hate crime.
About one in four transgender people will become the victim of a hate crime in their lifetimes. As of this week, thirty-seven trans and gender non-conforming people were killed this year (there are most likely more but they may be misgendered/deadnamed in reports or not reported at all). Violence against transgender people is a real and serious problem that must be addressed. Currently, only eleven states have banned this defense. However, eight states (MN, PA, TX, MA, NM, WI, IA, MD) and Washington, D.C. have introduced a bill to ban the LGBTQ panic defense. We live in a world where victims of violent crimes are being blamed for their own murders. The “trans panic” defense is unconscionable and should be banned in all fifty states.
Movement Advancement Project, 2020
Resources:
Comments