North Carolina has an apparently Constitutional law called Assault on a Female. Only males can be perpetrators of this crime and only females can be victims:
https://www.arnoldsmithlaw.com/assault-on-a-female.html
This doesn't appear to have any commentary I can find online, except from law firms.
Leaving aside the constitutionality question, does this offend anybody else's sense of 'equal protection before the law'?
https://www.arnoldsmithlaw.com/assault-on-a-female.html
Assault on a Female is a Class A1 misdemeanor punishable by a maximum sentence of 150 days in jail. This is an extremely common charge that can arise in the area of domestic households, as often times verbal arguments between people in a dating or marital relationship can lead to physical confrontations. For men, this is especially problematic, due to the extra protection our laws afford females as it pertains to being the victim of an assault. To meet the elements of Assault on a Female, an adult male (over the age of eighteen) must commit an assault or battery on a female. Click the following links to learn more about what constitutes an assault or a battery.
Many people find themselves asking how a statute such as this one can pass constitutional muster, given that it punishes males more severely than females for the exact same conduct. For example, a female who assaults a female can only be found guilty of a simple assault (a Class 1 misdemeanor punishable by a maximum sentence of 120 days in jail), whereas a male who does the exact same thing is subject to a harsher punishment and a higher class charge. However, the North Carolina Court of Appeals, in the case of State v. Gurganus, 39 N.C. App. 395, 250 S.E.2d 668 (1979), found it was constitutional, and since then Courts in North Carolina have repeatedly upheld it under the legal doctrine of stare decisis (that where a Court has determined a point of law, later Courts generally follow in their footsteps and come to the same result).
This doesn't appear to have any commentary I can find online, except from law firms.
Leaving aside the constitutionality question, does this offend anybody else's sense of 'equal protection before the law'?