Failures of the Justice System to Take Women and Girls Seriously

We are a nation that prides itself on democratic values and human rights. Yet, we often fail to extend these principles to American women and girls. Despite advances in gender equality, outdated legal frameworks, systemic biases, and an inconsistent federalist structure continue to undermine the freedoms and protections of half the population.

How long are we going to have to live with a justice system that doesn’t take women and girls seriously?

One glaring example of systemic failure is the handling of domestic abuse, child abuse, and sexual offenses. Recently, in Santa Barbara, a male predator was caught secretly recording children undressing at a school where he worked as a teacher, as well as at his home and hotels. Initially charged with a misdemeanor, the suspect was granted bail, allowing him to remain free in the community, where he and some members of his family attempted to influence some of the victims and their families. Despite further evidence of child molestation, the accused was once again granted bail by a male judge lacking adequate background knowledge of behavioral science, allowing the accused the opportunity to flee justice. Such systemic failures send a stark message to women and girls: Their trauma is not important enough to warrant attention.

The American justice system does not listen to or take women and girls seriously.

It does, however, take men who can afford bail and lawyers at their word.

This case is not unique and reveals the antiquated nature of the American legal system, where subjective judgments by poorly trained authorities and politicians too often place vulnerable populations — particularly women and children — at risk. The presiding judge, disconnected from modern behavioral science and legal practices, gave the accused the opportunity to escape accountability.

In a functional democracy, a credibly accused sexual predator fleeing from justice would be a national embarrassment, and every effort would be made to locate and apprehend him quickly. But not in the U.S. Recently, this is what the Fresno County Sheriff’s Department had to say about their efforts to find the fugitive:

“Fresno County Sheriff’s spokesperson Tony Botti said there have not been any new developments in the case. ‘We received some reports in mid-September of possible sightings, but none of them ever turned out to be valid,’ he said in an email. ‘Maybe I will have to put out the flier again for the public to keep looking?’”

Property Rights and Commerce over Human Rights

States’ rights lead to systemic violations, leaving the rights of ordinary Americans and vulnerable groups at the mercy of power brokers on the state and local levels that are not overseen by independent administrative state agencies representing the people; functional checks and balances on state and local power do not yet exist in the United States. In contrast, more developed democratic systems, such as Sweden’s, have implemented strong federal protections and independent oversight bodies staffed by representative bodies of citizen domain experts that ensure consistent and equitable enforcement of constitutional rights.

States’ Rights Deny Women Their Constitutional Rights

One of the most insidious ways in which women’s rights are compromised is through the historical prioritization of states’ rights and commerce and property interests over individual freedoms. The institutional structure of American federalism endangers women and girls by restricting the federal government’s authority to enforce their Constitutional rights.

Initially conceived with a primary focus on property rights and commerce, the U.S. Constitution grants states substantial authority over civil liberties and enforcement of the Bill of Rights, itself an afterthought to a group of men more concerned with commerce than human rights and individual freedoms.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted the “Privileges and Immunities” Clause to favor state authority over federal intervention, especially regarding rights like freedom of movement. In Ward v. Maryland (1871), the court ruled that “privileges and immunities” protect out-of-state citizens from discriminatory practices yet left enforcement predominantly to the states, curtailing federal oversight. The Slaughter-HouseCases (1873) further narrowed the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment, limiting federal intervention in state matters and reinforcing the states’ role as primary guardians of specific rights.

This state-centric approach was solidified in United States v. Harris (1883), where the court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment does not permit federal action against private infringements on individual rights within areas deemed state-controlled.

This interpretation reduces the Fourteenth Amendment — and, in many cases, the broader Bill of Rights — to a largely theoretical safeguard for ordinary Americans without access to extensive private legal resources. Aside from a few amendments with stronger protections, such as the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, federal enforcement remains limited.

Unlike the apolitical constitutional courts in advanced democracies, the U.S. Supreme Court is a political court that has historically reinforced state authority over individual liberties. This interpretation has shaped American federalism, restricting federal powers in areas viewed as state jurisdiction — even when fundamental individual rights are at stake, including those vital to women and girls’ safety and autonomy.

An Outdated Constitutional Framework

At the root of these systemic issues is the difficulty in reforming and adapting the U.S. Constitution — a document written in 1789 when women were excluded from political participation and viewed as subordinate to men. While amendments like the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote, have made strides toward gender equality, the Constitution still lacks explicit protections against gender-based discrimination. The failure to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) reflects a broader societal reluctance to address gender inequality head-on. Without the ERA, women’s rights remain subject to the interpretations of individual states and courts, often resulting in regressive policies that strip away their autonomy.

A Call for Justice, Peace, and Unity.

Addressing these issues requires substantial reforms, beginning with ratifying the ERA to guarantee gender equality. The legal system must also incorporate scientific knowledge, particularly in cases involving sexual assault, and hold judges and law enforcement accountable. We must replace unscientific practices like bail and juries with systems based on modern science. Federal oversight of state laws is essential to ensure equal treatment for women across the country. Without these reforms, women and girls in the U.S. remain vulnerable to a system that allows state and local governments to prioritize local power brokers, political agendas, and economic interests over individual liberties, often curbing women’s autonomy and violating children’s rights to live free from abuse!

In the 21st century, the United States remains a country where women and girls do not have fully guaranteed equal rights, largely due to the constraints of federalism and an outdated constitutional framework.

Many Americans are unaware of these systemic issues and continue to believe that our Constitution is perfect and, therefore, unlike everything else on this mortal coil, requires no adaptation.

Until there is a broader public understanding and a push for constitutional reform, women and girls will continue to face inequalities rooted in an 18th-century document that has not evolved to reflect scientific advances in our understanding of human behavior or adapted to massive technological development.

In these divisive times, regardless of our individual backgrounds, we should all agree that women and girls deserve the same opportunities and rights as men and boys!

Kristian L.T. Blom is the father of three children, husband, and business owner.