The strength of "gay panic" defenses may be dwindling. Prosecutors in California and New York are lobbying for restricted use of defendants using this excuse – that the sexual orientation of their victim caused justifiable fear – and lawmakers are listening.

"The suggestion that criminal conduct is mitigated by bias or prejudice is inappropriate," said San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who organized a two-day national conference on the issue. "We can't outlaw it, but we can combat it."

Lawmakers in California and New York are considering bills to deter the common courtroom strategy of making a victim's sexual orientation central to a criminal defense.

Both measures would require judges to remind jurors that bias toward the victim cannot influence their deliberations.

California's bill also would instruct juries that gay panic defenses are inconsistent with state laws protecting gays, lesbians and transgenders from discrimination.

It was prompted by the murder of 17-year-old Gwen Araujo, a transgender teenager who was beaten and strangled in 2002 after two men with whom she'd had anal sex learned she was biologically male.

Perhaps the most interesting, albeit obvious, notioin to silence criticism was brought by George Washington University School of Law professor Cynthia Lee, who suggested "prosecutors could ask the jury to imagine whether they would render the same verdict if the suspect were gay and the victim straight." Or whether the jury would render the same verdict if a white suspect attacked a black victim, and vice versa.

Lawyers Debate 'Gay Panic' Defense [AP]