The trial that I worked on in issues class was Elyse Roberts' case. I thought that the verdict was the right one. The verdict was that the District of Columbia's district attorneys office was guilty of not stopping nor preventing the sexual harassment of Elyse Roberts. I believe that our side of the case proved that. Sexual harassment is defined as "creating an offensive working or learning environment by repeated written, verbal, physical and/or visual contacts with sexual overtones". The lawyers for Elyse Roberts proved that Keven Murphy did this. His comments about seeing her in a swim suit, pictures of models as sexual objects with Elyse's name on them, and the lack of action her superiors took to reprimand Kevin proved that Elyse was a victim of sexual harassment in the work place. I believe that her employer should be held responsible. She went to her direct superior twice and their manager of human resources once, and nothing was done to change Kevin's behavior, they did not even move her office. She was demoted to a lower burro. In their handbook it is stated that all burros are created equal. It is true that they are equal in pay, but they are not equal in responsibility. It was a clear demotion that Elyse received because she had filed a complaint of sexual harassment. Another way the law defines sexual harassment is "retaliating against a person for reporting or threatening to report sexual harassment", which is what Elyse suffered. She was demoted because she was suffering from the trauma of sexual harassment. This is why I believe the verdict turned out as it should have.
The other trial I also believe should have turned out as it should have. I think that David did rape Rachel (?), but I do not think that prosecution did a good enough job of proving it beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe the defense did a very good job at proving that David was a nice guy with good intentions, and the prosecution did not focus enough on his violent and threatening actions towards Rachel. I believe that he is guilty but they could not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. David could not have been locked up with the way the evidence was presented because there was so much doubt in Rachel's story. I believe the prosecution should have focused more on her torn shirt and bruised arm rather than her just saying no. I think because the defense claimed that actions speak louder than words, but much doubt in the jury because many of Rachel's actions said yes.
I believe that sexual harassment is something that is very hard to define. It is hard to find the line between harassment and joking. I believe that the reasonable victims stand point needs to be used. It is not how it makes other people feel, but it is about how the victim feels. I do not think that Deerfield High School as a big problem with sexual harassment, but I believe that there is some. I think that the sexual harassment that goes on at Deerfield is looked at as teenagers being teenagers, and a lot of it is probably teenagers being teenagers. The problem is is that the victim of the sexual harassment may not feel that way. I believe comments and actions with sexual overtones need to be looked at more seriously because for some people it can be the worst form of bullying and going to school can become demeaning. It is the teachers and administrators job at Deerfield to protect their students from all types of harassment.
No comments:
Post a Comment