Does /pol/ think the "gay panic" defense is legit?

File: panic.jpg (196KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1280x1024px

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/06/09/gay-panic-defence-finally-debunked-by-scientific-study/

http://archive.is/mjOW7

‘Gay panic’ is still a partial legal defence to violence in many US states, although the state of Illinois recently outlawed its use.

The defence means that assailants who attack gay men after seeing homosexual behaviour may argue in court that they could not reasonably control their actions.

It relies on a largely discredited medical idea that many men will have a natural, biological response of rage when witnessing gay behaviour, which will make their actions uncontrollable.

Now, a study published in the Psychology and Sexuality journal shows the theory to be false.

The study showed a series of images – several of which included men having sex – to 120 men, and tested their saliva before and after for alpha-amylase, a chemical that is produced in saliva when a person is stressed.

The study showed that the level of alpha-amylase was the same for those participants who were shown to be tolerant of gay relationships and those who were not.

The study, written by Breanna O’Handley and Karen Blair, concluded that there is “no empirical evidence” to support the gay panic defence.

Last week, the Illinois state legislature decided that ‘gay panic’ and ‘trans panic’ are no longer legitimate legal defences, following in the wake of California – the only other US state to ban the defence.