This law (pdf), that is. Specifically subsection (c)(2). It seems to be saying that a man assaulting a woman is a considerably more serious offence than the same crime, all else being equal, committed by a woman against a man, or woman against women or man against man.
Is that in fact what it means, and if so what is the reason behind it?
Possibly an archaic law written when stereotypical gender roles were more accepted under the law. Similarly, the law in Idaho is written so that while a man can abandon his wife a woman cannot abandon her husband. I wonder if these laws would stand up under equal protection.
It does make assault by a male 18 or older on a female a special instance, yes. I am not clear on the difference between class 1 and A1 misdemeanors, though.
This is only unusual if this is a current law. In the past, including the very recent past, there were many laws where crimes against women were special and had elevated penalties. I recall from a study in one class that a significant number of blacks were executed in the South for “Assault on a White Woman,” for example, which from the evidence was not rape or sexual assault - those had separate categories. This was into the 1930s or later, IIRC.
It may be politically incorrect to say so, but a raped woman has a lot more to lose than a raped man. Especially in jurisdictions where abortion is difficult or impossible.
It could be a recognition that since males are generally physically stronger then an assault on a female who is generally weaker, by a male is worse under the law.
Remember, gender isn’t like race which is subject to strict scrutiny. Gender is subject to intermediate scrutiny that recognizes biological differences. I’m not so sure it would be struck down…
ETA: This is why mens and womens restrooms are good, but white and colored restrooms are…not so good…
They had the death penalty for assault? I mean I’ve heard of lynchings for looking at a white woman the wrong way, but a legit execution is a new one on me.
I’m sure abortion is legal in North Carolina, but this is just assault, not sexual assault.
In State v. Gurganus, 250 S.E.2d 668 (NC App 1979), the North Carolina Court fo Appeals analyzed that very question using the intermediate scrutiny standard. They concluded that the statute’s classification by gender both serves “important” governmental objectives and that it was “substantially related to achievement of those objectives.”
This was upheld as recently as 2005: in State v. Castosa, 618 SE2d 875 (NC App 2005) (unpublished).
As I think the question’s been answered, I just have to say: I now want to go down to North Carolina and become a prosecutor just so that I can charge someone with affray.
It may be archaic but a man swinging fists at a woman in most cases is a lot more damaging than a woman punching a man. Some woman can hit like a man and some men hit like a woman so the law is not a fair one.
Sometimes a sober driver can cause more damage in an accident that a drunk driver, but we still punish drunk driving more harshly. Laws are never perfect and they can’t be or else they could never be administered. General assumptions have to be made along the way.
Is it fair that a young adult aged 20 years 364 days can be cited for underage drinking? Will that young adult gain a wealth of maturity in one more day to allow him to drink responsibly? That’s an example of how laws, at their core, must be somewhat not fair at times in order to be enforced.
In PA, one kind of assault is charged as a “mutual affray.” In MD, a person suspected of being a vagrant used to be charged as “a rogue and a vagabond.”