Court Opinion

ID: 9645917
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:40:07.628661+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:32.914801
License: Public Domain

Conford, P. J. A. D.,
Temporarily Assigned (concurring). I join the opinion of the Court, but would add the following. The rationale of the plurality opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 93 S. Ct. 1764, 36 L. Ed. 2d 583 (1973), satisfies me that where an interest of the magnitude, of freedom from or minimization of penal incarceration is concerned an individual female cannot constitutionally be given more severe sentencing treatment for the same offense than that by law accorded males as a class on the basis of any characteristics thought or even proved to be applicable to females generally, or as to most of them.
I would therefore join in the decision of the court even if the record here justified the factual conclusion that most female offenders, or female offenders generally, are better subjects for rehabilitation than males, or less recidivist, or that a longer period of detention would promote the chances for rehabilitation of female offenders generally as opposed to male offenders generally.
In State v. Vacca for affirmance — Chief Justice Wein-traub, Justices Jacobs, Proctor, Hall, Mountain and Sullivan, and Judge Coneoed — 7.
*301For reversal — None.
In all other cases for affirmance and remand iuilh directions — -Chief Justice Weintraub, Justices Jacobs, Pboctor, Mountain and Sullivan, 'and Judges Conford and Collester — 7.
For reversal — None.