Michael M. V. Superior Court Case Summary

Michael M. vs Superior Court is the case that brought gender-neutrality in the criminal justice system to the light. Before this case was presented to the court, few states had adopted a gender-neutral statutory rape case and California, where the case took place, was not among them. The defense argued that California’s rape laws went against the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Then there was case of Mary Kay Letourneau, a former schoolteacher that was engaging in a sexual relationship with her 12 year old student. Letourneau was sentenced to 6 moths in jail while Michael M. received 10 years. It’s split into two sides when it comes to the topic of statutory rape and the equality of those involved. Some see it as almost coddling

These laws, then, uphold old notions of chastity and virginity, while providing a weapon against men from social groups we do not like. They also deprive women in their mid and late teens of choice under the guise of protecting that choice.

The highly “patriarchal and paternalistic” law is what Delgado sees an area for further revue. With the lack of women being charged for such crimes, he questions things such as pressured intercourse and sexual love involving two consenting individuals. He also believes that women are scarcely charged with statutory rape because it is how it “should be. Delgado states that “men and women stand on very different footings with respect to physical and social power”. In some ways, I do agree with Delgado. I completely believe that if you look or act a certain way, no matter the court you are in, you could get prosecuted no matter how unfair it is. Those are truly the only cases that get media attention. I also agree that a male having a sexual relationship with his consenting underage girlfriend should not be brought to trial on statutory rape. If that was the case, most male college freshmen who had high school senior girlfriends would be in jail and the justice system can’t seek out to punish

The fact that he states that the laws he just shunned are how they exactly should be is embarrassing. The words “as it should be” are worse than his implication that statutory rape laws are absurd. The fact that he truly believes society would be better off with out the law of statutory rape is beyond me. Not every 12-16 year old is sexually mature enough or even capable of processing the idea of sex so the answer to that is surely to take away the law that protects them, because in his eyes only the very young need this sort of protection. Ridiculous and farcical propositions to say the least. According to Michelle Oberman, who also wrote on the topic, getting rid of statutory rape laws pose to great of a risk to girls and their psychiatric health. Girls involved in either an exploitative one-night-stand or a continuous strand of unethical evenings, have a higher chance of depression, pregnancy, and illness. Overman says despite the usefulness of certain clauses of gender-neutral statutory rape laws, they “ignore the many exploitative sexual encounters between minors of similar ages.” She denotes that with out statutory rape laws being enacted, society risks the well-being of girls no matter the