Michael M. v. Superior Court (1981)(p. 337)
Holding: SC affirmed, following cases where courts held that the laws realistically reflected that the sexes are not always similarly situated.
Rationale: Rehnquist stated that it was a compelling state interest to prevent illegitimate pregnancy.
Blackmun (concurred in judgment, not in rationale): Said that Sharon not an unwilling participant at the beginning of the interaction.
Brennan (dissenting): CA presented no evidence showing that this statute would be less enforceable or effective in deterrence. Used historical evidence to state that the reason for the enactment of this law initially had nothing to do with pregnancy, but rather was b/c women deemed legally incapable of consenting to sex, as opposed to men. No protection for men b/c the law thought they could make decisions for themselves.
Notes: In light of VMI, this is probably not good law today b/c laws based on stereotypes don’t work.
Facts: P moved to have a statute that made men alone criminally liable for statutory rape invalid.
Holding: SC affirmed, following cases where courts held that the laws realistically reflected that the sexes are not always similarly situated.
Rationale: Rehnquist stated that it was a compelling state interest to prevent illegitimate pregnancy.
“The statute at issue here protects women from sexual intercourse at an age when those consequences are particularly severe.” Men suffer few consequences. Court goes on to say that a neutral statute would prevent enforcement b/c females would not report crimes that they could be prosecuted for. This case turns on the argument that men and women are not similarly situated re: statutory rape.
Blackmun (concurred in judgment, not in rationale): Said that Sharon not an unwilling participant at the beginning of the interaction.
Brennan (dissenting): CA presented no evidence showing that this statute would be less enforceable or effective in deterrence. Used historical evidence to state that the reason for the enactment of this law initially had nothing to do with pregnancy, but rather was b/c women deemed legally incapable of consenting to sex, as opposed to men. No protection for men b/c the law thought they could make decisions for themselves.
Notes: In light of VMI, this is probably not good law today b/c laws based on stereotypes don’t work.
No comments:
Post a Comment