The first case revolved around the issue of sexual harassment. Just as the class discussed after the verdict had been delivered, it seemed to be a very straightforward case, with the stipulated facts alone presenting enough evidence to convict Kevin Murphy of sexual harassment. Therefore, it seemed very fitting that the verdict delivered was one of “guilty.” A main issue of concern in this case was intent vs. impact. It was made clear from the beginning of the case that Kevin Murphy did indeed make comments to Elise Roberts that had sexual undertones and could be perceived as inappropriate. So, the goal of the case did not seem to be an issue of whether or not Murphy said such comments—it was confirmed that he did—but instead and issue of which individual, Murphy or Roberts, had a flawed perception of acceptable behavior. Because of this, I found the testimony of Kenneth Puma most compelling because of the way in which he changed the way in which Kevin Murphy was perceived. In Puma’s testimony he painted Kevin Murphy has a man who liked to joke around, but often crossed the line. An example that comes to mind is when Puma testified that Murphy made some comment in court about Elise and another woman. Puma said that he recognized this comment as very inappropriate and seemed to take mental note of it. I found Puma’s testimony most compelling because, while he was testifying on behalf of the plaintiff and therefore meant to paint Murphy in a poor light, his testimony seemed relatively well-balanced and neutral, in effect making it believable and credible. His position as a fellow co-worker who seemed to have a vastly personality than Elise yet still found Murphy’s comments unacceptable certainly helped to show that while Elise may have perhaps been a ‘high strung’ and sensitive woman, this sensitivity was not the reason behind her accusations. In other words, Kevin Murphy’s harassment was also recognized and deemed offensive by another relatively uninvolved party, ultimately legitimizing her complaint against Murphy. In this particular case, I do not see how a verdict other than “guilty” could have possibly been delivered. The only way that Kevin Murphy could have reasonably been acquitted of these charges was if the defense presented an incredibly strong case supporting the theory that Elise Roberts was so unusually emotionally fragile and had such a severely skewed perception of others that her personality allowed her to perceive Murphy’s comments as offensive harassment when they indeed were not. However, I do not think there was ample evidence available in the case to support said theory, which is why I certainly support and agree with the outcome of the trial and believe that, based on the testimonies and facts of the case, it was the correct decision.
In the second case, David Jones v. United States, I do not necessarily agree with verdict of the case. I, as a defense attorney for the case, was of course pleased with the results but still do not believe they were the correct decision. Although overall this case seemed to offer more room for deliberation than the sexual harassment case, it still seemed to me that there were many explicit stipulated facts that alone were enough for a guilty verdict. For example, in David Jones v. United States, it is stipulated that Susan Williams explicitly said “no” several times. To me, that fact alone qualifies Mr. Jones as a rapist in this case. After witnessing resistance from Ms. Williams in both physical and verbal forms, he still proceeded to have sex with her. I found the most compelling witness in this case to be David Jones. Since the prosecution seemed to have such a strong case against Jones, I found his testimony to be very interesting, as it painted him as a very innocent man who was a victim of unfortunate miscommunication.
Without trying to diminish the trauma faced by any rape victim, I feel that in some ways it may be more traumatic to be a victim of date rape rather than a victim of a random, anonymous rape. Both cases are tremendously traumatic in their own ways, but the personal aspect of date rape seems that it would have an especially scarring impact on the victim. It seems that date rape is not only violent, but also violates the trust of the victim, as victims of date rape usually know their attacker. Another prevalent issue with date rape is the element of confusion, which was witnessed in this trial. With date rape, the victim not only has to deal with the trauma of what has happened to her, but also often has to confront self-doubt and a sense that her feelings of violation and victimization are illegitimate—something that only worsens an already terrible crime.
I have never heard of a girl at Deerfield High School being a victim of date rape. Although I’m sure it has happened, it is not an issue that I believe occurs frequently enough to be considered a real problem at this school. I think the reason behind the absence of date rape is that we have been so thoroughly educated on the dangers of it. As we all saw from the case, because the issue of date rape is so delicate and can be subjective, one must look at it through a strongly black and white lens and simply follow the creed of “no means no.” I believe this mentality has, fortunately, been engrained in the minds of most students at DHS, resulting in date rape becoming an essential non-issue at our school. Unlike date rape, I do feel that sexual harassment is slightly more common. Perhaps it is merely ‘teenagers being teenagers’ and throwing around thoughtless comments, but I do think that sexual harassment does occur on a small level. While comments may be made, I have yet to witness a student who seems to be legitimately bothered or threatened by the comments. It seems that any comments that could be construed as “sexual harassment” are all obviously made in jest, with the ‘harasser’ usually knowing when to draw the line and stop.
No comments:
Post a Comment