The severity of legal claims to a sexual harassment may require the victims to be actively involved in the legal proceedings aimed at promoting justice and fairness. Different ethicists are opposed to this idea on the belief that it does not serve the best interest of the victims of sexual assault. The legal procedure requires lawyers to present concrete information before the court to facilitate the application of the relevant law. However, the sensitivity of the matter should act as a baseline to avoid causing further harm to the victims in the process of upholding justice. Sexual harassment and gender violence is a sensitive issue that can result in discrimination, profiling, and humiliation. Victims of gender should not play a role in the severity of legal response to a sexual harassment claim because the sensitivity of the matter can expose them to negative criticism, victimization and stigma.
The due process was coined to ensure that citizens receive a fair hearing before the legal institutions determine their fate. It has been instrumental in preventing discrimination and hastened collection of evidence which can be susceptible to bias. However, in severe sexual harassment cases, protecting the victims from responding can be more beneficial than parading them from cross-examination (Spohn & Tellis, 2012). The principle idea is to act in the best interest of the victims and shield them from negative criticism. This is consistent with the utilitarian theory which indicates that an action is justifiable if it promotes happiness. The pioneers of the theory, John Stuart Mill, and Jeremy Bentham were critical that the rightness or the unseemliness of an act is dependent on the motive of the agent (Mill, 2008). However, there is a concern about the extent of rightful actions that can infringe on an individual’s happiness.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Bringing this to the context of sexual harassment, involving gender victims in responding to severe sexual harassment claims may not serve their best interests. According to Spohn and Tellis (2012), the possibility of negative criticism perpetrated by individuals in the society may have detrimental effects on the emotional well-being of the affected persons. It is worth noting that sexual cases attract critics with the intention of justifying the actions of the perpetrators. Various assumptions are made in sexual cases to dispel the legal measures against sexual crime offenders. First, it is assumed that individuals who do not report the cases immediately act on the influence of an external force when seeking justice. Secondly, the victims, particularly women who have lost virginity have the possibility of engaging in sex with the partners and later file a case of abuse (Triplett, 2012). Although lawyers are directed not to incline to such preclusive opinions, it is worth noting that involving the victims in responses exposes them to the public criticism which is informed by such assumptions. Utilitarianism demands that such adverse consequences should inform the decision-making process and prevent further emotional suffering.
Also, negative acuity may sprout from the perception that the victims had ventured interest when they were sexually abused. While responding to claims, the adversarial process is designed to give the defense team an opportunity to undermine the evidence presented by the prosecution through exposing the inconsistencies in the testimony rendered by the witness. As Triplett (2012) observes, unlike the victims of other crimes such as burglary, drug trafficking among others, the jury must believe individuals who undergo through sexual harassment, this gives the lawyers a chance to ask them leading, subjective and embarrassing questions. For instance, the defendant may argue that the victim was looking forward to gaining resources after engaging in intercourse and upon failing to achieve the objective; he/she decided to seek legal intervention. Such comments paint a negative image of the victims in the eyes of the jury and the public in court (Triplett, 2012). A prime example is Andrade v. Brewer whereby, Andrade sued his music teacher for rape. The severity of the case required her to play a role in responding to the questions from the defendants. She was so embarrassed in court that she felt as if she had been raped again. A few days later, she committed suicide (Triplett, 2012). Involving her did not have any utilitarian approach. By punishing the teacher, the court could have handed her justice. However, the negativity that was created during cross-examination deprived her of happiness, and she became depressed.
Involving the victims of gender in responding to legal sexual responses victimizes them. Sexual assault differs from other forms of crime because the act has a mutual perspective. Therefore, individuals have to prove that there were vested interests that resulted in the exploitation. Victimization results when there is no concrete evidence to charge then perpetrators. Also, the defendants might make up an account to convince the jury that the plaintiffs are after destroying their personality (Andrews, Lamb & Lyon, 2015). Nonetheless, this cannot be used as a basis to discourage sexual victims from seeking legal advice and justice. The deontological theory provides that an action is morally good if some parts of its process are morally appropriate (Kant, 2010). It is noteworthy that the end product of parading the victims in court for a legal response can result in the irreparable victimization. However, it is morally correct to encourage victims to present their cases for hearing but be cautious not to inflict unnecessary suffering.
According to Daly (2014), victimization is a primary reason that discourages gender and sexual harassment victims from seeking legal intervention. The picture painted by the defense lawyers for the plaintiffs makes them appear like the offenders. For instance, in 1991, Anita Hill, a lawyer informed the Congress that she had been sexually harassed by Clarence Thomas, a nominee to the Supreme Court. However, she was disparaged as a character assassin who was acting as a puppet for activists who were against abortion (Daly, 2014). Such implications work against the deontological ideology because the result of activity should not be a barrier to the well-intended and moral actions in the process.
The fear of being victimized at the conclusion of a case belittles the noble actions of forming a basis to grant justice. Even if the court makes a favorable conclusion, the character damage suffered by the victims is irreversible, and some may regret having sought the intervention of the court. Lawyers should use the theory to determine the extent to which they should involve their clients in responding to claims (Andrews, Lamb & Lyon, 2015). Particularly, those who cannot afford quality representation in court should be protected since they are susceptible to exploitation and undue influence from popular counsels. Presenting them for response is likely to turn them into offenders who are after blackmailing individuals and tarnish their names in the face of the public.
Exposing the victims may have adverse consequences on the perception of the jury. It is noteworthy that the resounding nature of the evidence presented by the victims is contributory in helping the jury reach a verdict. Moreover, invoking the emotions of jurists can determine the direction that a given case takes. According to Andrews, Lamb, and Lyon (2015), sexual harassment victims who are construed to have been driven by egocentric reasons may end up being luminaries of ostracism. Different states have also alluded to this possibility and have developed laws to protect the victims from victimization. For instance, in the state of Nebraska, the Rape Protection Law safeguards individuals who have been sexually abused from sexual stereotyping that comes after a public disclosure of intimate accounts. In the jurisdiction, such victims are not required to be present for a legal response unless the court determines their presence to be necessary during the case.
Stigmatization is also a major reason why gender and sexual victims should not play a role in the legal response. Sexual harassment cases attract the attention of the public particularly if there is an element of popularity in the individual implicated. Calling upon the victims to respond to the claims turns them into media luminaries (Schönbucher et al., 2013). They are profiled, and this greatly disrupts their regular schedules. For instance, a student in college may be forced to drop out due to the public attention and curiosity surrounding their cases. Even if they got justice and compensated for the damages, they may not be accepted back to the society without members of the public referring to their sexual harassment. In the case of rape, Schönbucher et al. (2013) provide that there is a possibility of an individual's sex life being destroyed since people may not be ready to interact with them freely. A utilitarian approach can foresee the disruptions and stigmatization that is likely to result and act as a basis to protect the victims from legal responses.
Also, severe stigma arises when the cross-examination brings to light the particulars of the harassment accounts and the circumstances surrounding the ordeal. It is noteworthy that most of the sexually abused persons are below the age of 18 years. They are, therefore, prone to grooming from their aggressors. The public may construe this as an opportunity gone wrong. This not only results in embarrassment but also affects the victims’ interpersonal relationships (Schönbucher et al., 2013). The stigma that they suffer from lacerates their self-confidence, self-perception, and social networks. Such injurious implications justify their exemption in the legal responses.
Although there is compelling evidence to show that the active participation of gender and sex victims in hearings affect their social and emotional wellbeing, there is a school of thought which believes that all legal cases should receive the same attention. The presence of a victim during hearing offers a chance to deduce any false information. Therefore, the provision of habeas corpus should not only apply to the accused but also to the plaintiff. The rationale for this that the victims offer first-hand information on what transpired and this is critical in the determination of a case. While this is correct, it is worth putting into consideration the weight of sexual harassment cases. According to Schönbucher et al. (2013), intimate matters become embarrassing when laid bare before the public. During questioning, the victims may become uncomfortable, particularly in a full courtroom. The lawyers may use the opportunity to demonstrate to the court that the information given is not correct. Furthermore, it is unethical and a diversion of morals to interrogate an individual on intimate matters, mainly with the intention of making them uncomfortable and embarrassing them.
The objection can also be dispelled from a utilitarian point of view. Mill and Bentham were critical that an action could only be moral if it promotes happiness and results in the good of the public (Mill, 2008). The numerous cases that go unreported due to the fear of victimization and stigma are evidence that involving the victims in the process does not contribute to the good of the society. Insisting on their participation also depicts ignorance on the emotional implications that victims go through after the conclusion of the cases (Andrews, Lamb & Lyon, 2015). Since they are left disillusioned and with spineless interpersonal relationships, it is correct to deduce that their role is not based on the facets of utilitarianism. It is also imperative to note that justice is found on consistency, retribution, and restoration. The post-involvements implications rebut restoration since they usher in a series of emotional suffering that affects the quality of life. Since the role of the due process is to ensure justice, it would be inconsistent if victims play a role in severe legal responses.
Conclusively, victims of gender should not play a role in the severity of legal response to a sexual harassment claim since the gravity of the ordeal makes them predisposed deleterious criticism, victimization, and humiliation. Utilitarian theory demands that all actions should be for the public good and happiness. Involving the victims in responses neither cultivates their happiness nor the eradication of harassments in the society. In fact, it discourages reporting and seeking legal intervention. The exposure that accompanies such cases also humiliates the victims, and this disrupts their daily life. Although they may be required to be present in some particular circumstances, the department of justice should devise methods that are less intrusive to protect the victims from being exposed. Also, there should be a guideline to limit the probing questions and use other methods to gather evidence. For instance, in the case of rape, scientific and medical methods can be applied without having the victims stand the embarrassing questioning. Finally, although some states are a step ahead in developing and enforcing regulations to protect gender sand sexual victims, some have not considered such legislations as important, and there is a need for sensitization a demonstration of how such rules can be beneficial to the citizens.
References
Andrews, S. J., Lamb, M. E., & Lyon, T. D. (2015). Question types, responsiveness, and self‐contradictions when prosecutors and defense attorneys question alleged victims of child sexual abuse. Applied Cognitive Psychology , 29 (2), 253-261.
Daly, K. (2014). Reconceptualizing Sexual victimization and justice. Justice for Victims: Perspectives on rights, transition, and reconciliation , 378-395.
Kant, I. (2010). The Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals .Ohio: Jonathan Bennett.
Mill, J. (2008). Utilitarianism .Ohio; Jonathan Bennett.
Spohn, C., &Tellis, K. (2012).The criminal justice system’s response to sexual violence. Violence Against Women , 18 (2), 169-192.
Triplett, M. R. (2012). Sexual assault on college campuses: Seeking the appropriate balance between due process and victim protection. Duke LJ , 62 , 487.
Schönbucher, V., Maier, T., Mohler-Kuo, M., Schnyder, U., &Landolt, M. A. (2012). Disclosure of child sexual abuse by adolescents: An in-depth qualitative study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 27 (17), 3486-3513.
