On March 16, gay and transgender people were added back to the Clementa C. Pinckney Hate Crimes Act, just five days after being removed. But in return, stalking, harassment and vandalism were removed from the bill — a roller coaster that has left many people concerned about the effectiveness of the law.
In order to understand the fear that the South Carolina LGBTQ+ community experienced for those five days, you need to understand a very little-known topic: gay panic defense.
To this day, until a law prohibiting the “gay panic defense” is passed, a person could be murdered in cold blood, and the guilt undeniably proven. But if a person’s sexuality or gender identity is, or even could be, perceived as anything but heterosexual, the murderer can get, and in precedent has gotten, off scot-free.
The even lesser–known subcategory within the gay panic defense is the trans panic defense. Here are a few examples of times it was used:
In the Gwen Araujo homicide, three defendants were infuriated after realizing that the transgender teenager they’d had sex with had a penis. Araujo was subjected to “forced genital exposure” before she was brutally murdered by the three men. Two were convicted of second-degree murder; one was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. None of them received additional time for committing a hate crime.
In the 2008 Angie Zapata homicide, her killer learned that she had a penis, to which she replied, “I’m all woman,” with a smile, which the defense argued was a “highly provoking act.” Despite beating her to death, Zapata’s murderer almost escaped conviction, and this was the first time the murder of a transgender person had ever been considered a hate crime.
In 2013, Islan Nettles was beaten to death after her murderer discovered she was transgender. Three days later, he turned himself in, but he was charged with neither murder nor a hate crime. Instead, Nettles’ murderer was charged with manslaughter and given 12 years of jail time.
While it is exceedingly relieving that gay and trans people have been returned to the list of potential hate crimes, in return, it has been majorly watered down for fear of offending conservative religious groups.
As Columbia Democrat Rep. Beth Bernstein put it, “If a black church is desecrated with graffiti using the n-word, that would not be a hate crime,” according to the current verbiage of the law.
While stalking and harassment may not sound as important, they constitute everything coming short of assault and battery.
So with the changes being made to the hate crimes act, here are some of the things that people of color and members of the LGBTQ+ community can experience without it being considered a hate crime:
Being followed; in many cases, being verbally harassed or threatened in person, over a call or text; being the victim of bullying or cyberbullying; having their private lives intruded on, including nonconsenting photography; being caused mental or emotional stress without physical injury; targeted vandalism and/or property damage; and, being threatened or made to fear any of the above happening.
For years, stalking, in particular, has been a behavior that is incredibly threatening and, without outside intervention, very frequently results in someone being hurt, raped or killed.
Despite hundreds of cases where people reported their stalkers and then were later assaulted by their stalker, until the person in question commits some other crime, the police legally cannot take action in most cases.
The bill is yet to be ratified as an official SC law, and if not approved by April 10, it will be essentially impossible to pass.
