The first trial that I was apart of, was a civil case between Elyse Roberts and her employer. She claimed they did not protect her from reoccurring sexual harassment. The District of Columbia was found guilty and sued for a large sum of money and Kevin Murphy had to write a lot of apologies.
At first, before I even knew my role, I thought Elyse was overreacting and should not win the case. When assigned my role, my opinion became stronger. However, after the trial was over with and I heard the plaintiff and Mr. Kramer talk about the case, it became apparent to me how she was sexually harassed. I thought Elyse Roberts was a horrible lawyer and under a lot of pressure because of that, not from Kevin Murphy. This may even be true, but the fact is Kevin did sexually harass her, and she could easily blame her stress and performance on that. It was quite apparent that Elyse had social problems with men and getting along with them, but still this does not disprove Kevin Murphy sexually harassed her. In order to reach the opposite outcome, I would have needed to hear that the EEOC had confirmed that she was not a victim of sexual harassment, but of her own problems.
The second trial was a criminal case between the United States and David Jones. Susan Williams claimed she was raped by David Jones, despite him being her boyfriend and them having sex before. David Jones was found not guilty because there was not enough evidence to put David in jail. Throughout the trial I was up and down with the verdict, it was hard to decide. However, the most compelling evidence is that Susan said stop and tried to leave, but was unable to due to David pulling her back. Then I decided he was guilty, but most of the others thought he wasn't guilty because Susan kept kissing David. This case was difficult to decide because they were in a relationship and had had sex before. Susan could have just been upset over the note she found. However, the torn shirt and bruises made me think otherwise. If Susan had made it quite apparent she didn't want to take her cloths of and have sex, and that she was pulled back into the bed, then I think the case would have gone the other way.
I think these are both big issues and are very complex. There are multiple ways a sexual assault and harassment may be perceived. As a juror, the best thing to do is stick to the basics and ask yourself the direct question if the person was truly a victim. What makes these issues so complex, is that the defendant often doesn't know they are committing harassment or assault like in the two cases we did, when they truly are. People should know that there always two sides to the argument, but for these cases you just got to move past the story and stick to the facts and evidence. I would not say these are issues at DHS. Perhaps to a lesser extent a person may tease another person about their sexual orientation, but nothing too serious. No sexual assault takes place at DHS. These matters seem like they would be more prevalent in the workplace or at college. I think here at DHS we believe in respect for women and that's why this doesn't happen much. Our culture here at DHS give women more say and more power. These issues should always still be addressed because they can happen to anyone without them knowing it. With them addressed, people will know how to better treat people and reflect on their actions and their effects. Like I said before, sexual harassment for one person can be joking around for another.
No comments:
Post a Comment